Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47994 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2020 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav Son Of Sachendra Yadav @ Sachchidanand Yadav R/O- Kalwara, Ward No.-12, P.S.- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects within four weeks.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 379 and 356 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, after collecting money, while the informant was on the way, three miscreants riding on motorcycle are said to have dashed the informant and snatched away the bag full of money.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents as mentioned in para

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47994 of 2022(2) dt.06-12-2022 2/2 three of the bail application. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpired, during the course of investigation, in the confessional statement of the co-accused.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that considering the allegation and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he does not deserve bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Shahnawaz/- U T