Sudhir Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42800 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2020 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sudhir Singh S/O Late Chandradev Singh R/O Village- Baikunthpur, P.SRajapakar, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 108 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 379, 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. As per the prosecution case, allegation against the petitioner is that he took informant's vehicle on rent but under conspiracy he sold the said vehicle stealthily to the coaccused, Vikash Kumar, without consent of the informant and fled away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42800 of 2023(2) dt.10-08-2023 2/2 case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner has never taken the alleged vehicle on rent from the informant, the vehicle is not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged vehicle was recovered from the possession of co-accused Vikash Kumar, who has been granted bail by the learned Court below. The petitioner has six criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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