Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42476 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2019 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ====================================================== PAPPU KUMAR @ PAPPU SAHANI SON OF LATE SAKAL CHAUDHARY @ SAKAL SAHANI VILLAGE- HATHIYAHI, P.S.- PIPRAKOTHI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raki Alam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2024

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Pakridayal Police Station Case No. 312 of 2019, dated 03.10.2019, disclosing offences under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 03.10.2019, while the informant, who is engaged in the business of paddy straw and provides the same on credit, had gone to recover his dues. In the meanwhile, four unknown persons on two motorcycle, stopped the informant's motorcycle, held him, snatched his mobile and took out two bags from his motorcycle's trunk, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42476 of 2024(2) dt.02-08-2024 2/2 which Rs. 2,50,000/- were kept. On protest, they fired at him and ran away.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in First Information Report and his name has transpired, during course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure made by arrested co-accused persons. He next submits that the petitioner is a student of LLB.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the offence is heinous in nature and the petitioner has seven criminal antecedents one of which is of similar nature.

6. Regards being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration that the offence is heinous in nature and the petitioner has seven criminal antecedents, one of which is of similar nature, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U T