Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45069/2018dismissed

Anup Kumar Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-11Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45069 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -56 Year- 2014 Thana -MUFFASIL District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Anup Kumar Singh, S/o Arjun Singh, R/o Vill.- Ghasipur, Adhwar , P.S.- Ahiraura, District- Mirjapur (U.P.).

2. Narendra Kumar Singh S/o Ram Dayal @ Ram Dayal Singh, R/o Vill.- Lalapur, P.S.- Adhwar, P.S.- Ahiraura, District- Mirjapur (U.P.),

3. Basant Patel @ Basant Singh Patel S/o Tarkeshwar Patel @ Tarkeshwar Singh Patel, R/o Vill.- Markandey Bari Dala Paper, P.S.- Chopan, DistrictSonbhadra (U.P.). .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Amrendra Kumar with Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Aurangabad Muffasil P.S.Case No. 56 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act. Petitioners are not named in the FIR and as per FIR allegation is that one vehicle was intercepted along with explosive substance and two persons were arrested and later on names of petitioners transpired on the basis of statement of co-accused. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the arrested persons have not named the petitioners and after four

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45069 of 2018 (3) dt.11-09-2018 2/2 years names of petitioners transpired in this case and, that too, on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioners have criminal antecedents and against petitioner No.1 process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was exhausted.

Having heard both sides and in view of allegation and criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Hence, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U