Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41408/2019dismissed

Manish Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-05Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41408 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2017 Thana- TAJPUR DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== MANISH RAI, aged about 34 years, male, Son of Shukrit Ray Resident of Village - North Dhamoun, P.S.- Patori, Dist.- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 05-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2017.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the F.I.R. is against user of mobile no. 7461057919. It is submitted that the said mobile number does not belong to the petitioner or his wife. The petitioner's name has surfaced merely on the confessional statement of co-accused Guddu Rai, except which there is no objective material to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. Similarly situated coaccused Ankesh Kumar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 48496 of 2017. The petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41408 of 2019(2) dt.05-07-2019 2/2 accused in one prior case of different nature.

4. Learned APP invites reference to the order of the learned Sessions Judge wherein para-104 of the case diary has been taken note of, according to which the mobile number of the petitioner's wife Renu Devi had also been used from the mobile set for threatening. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on different footing than the case of co-accused Ankesh Kr. Singh.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar/BT U T