Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37418/2017rejected

Monu Kumar @ Ponga v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-12Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37418 of 2017 (4) dt.12-12-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37418 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2017 Thana -KANKARBAGH District- PATNA ====================================================== Monu Kumare @ Ponga, Son of Chotte Lal Mahto, Resident of MohallaEast Lohanipur, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Sahin Begam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2017, registered under Sections 356 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna. The accusation is that while the informant was moving in the field talking on mobile. At that time, two persons came on motorcycle and snatched his mobile containing two SIMS one of Airtel and other is Jio.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., but in course of investigation, only it has come that the motorcycle which was used in snatching

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37418 of 2017 (4) dt.12-12-2017 the mobile set belonging to the petitioner which is in the name of brother of the petitioner. Further submission is that petitioner is accused in Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2017 registered under Sections 356, 379, 414 and 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T