Vinay Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37337 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2018 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== VINAY PASWAN S/o Late Ramdev Paswan R/o village- Bharub, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devenra Narain Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2021 Heard both sides.

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Haspura PS Case No. 79/2018 registered under Section 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that five persons entered into jewelry shop of the informant and while he was showing ornaments three persons also came and one of them assaulted the informant with butt of pistol but some how the informant came out from the shop and raised alarm thereafter one of the accused exploded bomb.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR but during the course of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37337 of 2020(2) dt.25-06-2021 2/2 investigation one Mukesh Kumar was identified on the basis of CCTV footage and he confessed his guilt. Mukesh Kumar disclosed the name of the petitioner in the alleged dacoity. It is further submitted that save and except confession of Mukesh Kumar, there is no other material. The petitioner has not been identified on the basis of CCTV footage but it appears to me that photographs have been captured in the CCTV. The informant identified one of the accused Mukesh Kumar whose photograph was captured and the case requires Test Identification Parade of the accused.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T