Raunak Kumar @ Raunak Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47259 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-741 Year-2022 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== RAUNAK KUMAR @ RAUNAK KUMAR THAKUR SON OF SANJAY THAKUR @ MANOJ THAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGENAYANAGAR, W N 14 P S -UDA KISHUNGANJ DISTRICTMADHEPURA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2023

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 741 of 2022 dated 26-07-2022 registered for the offence under Sections 392 / 411 / 413 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution story on 25.07.2022 the informant arrived from Madhepura on a train to Purnea from Koshi Express. He did not get any transport in the night hours to reach home and as such the informant walked on foot towards his residence. In the meanwhile, two motorcycle borne miscreants, wearing mask on their face, on the point of pistol snatched the mobile phone, cash Rs. 13000/-, Ph.D thesis of his younger brother and other certificates belonging to the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47259 of 2023(3) dt.11-10-2023 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused from whose possession the looted article has been recovered. He next submits that except confessional statement no other material is there against the petitioner and the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the accused person from whose possession looted articles have been recovered has disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of the accomplices and the money looted from the informant has been shared among all accused persons including the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that investigation against the petitioner is still going on, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T