Mukesh Thakur v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40892 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2022 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani ====================================================== MUKESH THAKUR S/o- Ram Bahadur Thakur R/o- Village - Siriyapur, P.S.- Basopatti, Ward No. 3, District - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and he relies on an order dated 08.12.2022 in Cr. Misc. No. 40422 of 2022 and submits that petitioner should also be given the same treatment as the petitioner of the said case.
Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40892 of 2022(2) dt.08-12-2022 2/2 petitioner and learned counsel for the informant submits that the consideration for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 40422 of 2022 was that three of them were senior citizens and were persons with clean antecedent and one of the petitioners was aged about 55 years but the petitioner of this case has criminal antecedent of two cases and as such his case is not on the same footing as that of petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 40422 of 2022.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is thus rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T