Purushottam Kumar @ Purushottam Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47161 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-530 Year-2022 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR @ PURUSHOTTAM MISHRA SON OF SURESH MISHRA @ SURESH KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGETHATIYA UNDER PS- SAKRA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amiya Kunal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Tajpur (Waini O.P.) P.S. Case No.- 530 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He has got three criminal antecedents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner name has surfaced from the confessional statement of one Md. Imran that he was involved in stealing the informant's motorcycle. In Para '25' of the case diary, it has come that two apprehended accused namely Sumit Kumar and Dharmendra in their statement have disclosed that the petitioner along with one Md. Imran and Manish brought the two wheeler and four wheeler vehicles after stealing, thereafter, they cut the stolen vehicles with the help of one Raja Pandit.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47161 of 2023(2) dt.11-08-2023 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from the alleged possession of the petitioner.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the submissions that this petitioner was bringing the stolen two wheeler and four wheeler to the coaccused who were involved in cutting those vehicles and that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.

8. In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by the order of this Court.

9. This application stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/- U T