Nikesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42552 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2021 Thana- TANDWA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

NIKESH KUMAR Son of Janeshwar Ram Residence of village- Mohri Itwan, P.S- Tandwa, Dist- Aurangabad.

2.

Chandan Kumar Son of Ashresh Ram @ Aaresh Ram Residence of villageMohri Itwan, P.S- Tandwa, Dist- Aurangabad. 3.

Mandan Kumar Son of Ashresh Ram @ Aaresh Ram Residence of villageMohri Itwan, P.S- Tandwa, Dist- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukul Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 29-11-2022 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this anticipatory bail application in respect of petitioner no.3, Mandan Kumar as he has already been apprehended by the police during pendency of this application. Permission is granted.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn so far as petitioner no.3, Mandan Kumar is concerned.

Heard both sides.

Petitioners no.1 and 2 apprehend their arrest in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.103 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 354(A), 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42552 of 2022(2) dt.29-11-2022 2/2 The petitioners are said to have entered into the house of the informant and assaulted her younger sister. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 snatched a chain made of gold from possession of sister of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against petitioners no.1 and 2. It is submitted that specific allegation is against father of petitioner no.1, Janeshar Ram.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioners no.1 and 2, namely, Nikesh Kumar and Chandan Kumar on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners no.1 and 2, namely, Nikesh Kumar and Chandan Kumar is rejected.

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