Dilip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15916 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -37 Year- 2017 Thana -GAURICHAK District- PATNA ====================================================== Dilip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Singh Son of Sri Vishwanath Singh, Resident of Village- Khushhal Chak, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 2.

14-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is seeking Anticipatory Bail in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 411, 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

The First Information Report has been lodged by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police alleging therein that in course of investigation, in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 28/2017 under Section 461 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, he got an information that the stolen properties are lying in the premises of M/s Kishan Khad Bhandar of which the present petitioner is the proprietor. It is alleged that in course of search some of the stolen properties, details of which have been given in the First Information Report, were recovered from the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case has been lodged at the instance of the persons who are rivals in business. Learned counsel further

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15916 of 2017 (2) dt.14-06-2017 submits that the seizure is not in accordance with Section 100 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that since First Information Report itself contains the description of the goods and articles recovered from the premises of the present petitioner and those are found to be stolen property, in any view of the matter, it is not a case for exercise of discretion to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner for the offences as alleged. Hence, I am not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected.

In case, the petitioner surrenders within a period of four weeks and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the orders of this Court.

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