Ankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46712 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2020 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== ANKAJ KUMAR Son of Gango Choudhary Resident of Village Rohiyar, P.S. Mansi, District - Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arghesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual Court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No.82 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC.

Allegedly some miscreants at the point of pistol took the bike, a bag containing Rs.3,76,000/-, laptop charge and some other papers of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46712 of 2021(2) dt.22-04-2022 2/2 has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not named in the F.I.R. and the same is lodged against some unknown miscreants. Only on the confessional statement of one Pankaj Kumar, the name of petitioner has transpired in this case. It is submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely Bikram Yadav and Prince Kumar have been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No.31057 of 2020. There is no recovery from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that in the impugned order, it has clearly come that the petitioner is involved in committing loot of motorcycle on the highways from several places. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner named above. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T