Sablu Kumar @ Bablu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48890 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-725 Year-2022 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Sablu Kumar @ Bablu Kumar Son Of Mahesh Yadav R/O-Uber, P.S.- GHOSHI, Distt.-JEHANABAD ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 725 of 2022, registered on 21.10.2022 for the offences under Sections 392 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, four miscreants intercepted the tractor of the informant and at gun-point abducted the informant and took away his tractor, Rs. 5,000/- in cash and a mobile phone. The name of the petitioner transpired during investigation as one of the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and during

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48890 of 2023(2) dt.11-08-2023 2/2 investigation when the statement of SHO Khudaganj was recorded, he named the petitioner and other co-accused persons for being involved in such type of offences. Co-accused Munchun Kumar was apprehended and disclosed the name of petitioner and others. Thereafter, a raid was conducted and from the house of the petitioner a tractor was recovered. Learned counsel further submits that this is not a case of robbery since the petitioner works as an agent for a company that repossesses vehicles financed by finance companies if the loan is not repaid. It is not believable that the looted tractor was recovered on the same day and it creates doubts over the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of very serious nature.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering the grave nature of allegation against the petitioner, I do not think it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) himanshu/- U T