← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60481/2021rejected

Kare Roy @ Rohit Kumar Roy @ Karka Kare v. The State Of Bihar

2022-06-06Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60481 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2020 Thana- AKBARNAGAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== KARE ROY @ ROHIT KUMAR ROY @ KARKA KARE S/o Mehta Roy Resident of Village- Bhawnathpur, P.S.- Akbarnagar, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP-34 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-06-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Akbarnagar P.S. Case No.-139/2020, registered for the offences under Sections 384 and 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution story the accused persons including the petitioner intercepted the truck of the informant on the point of pistol and demanded Rs. 6000/- and when the informant objected then the accused persons started assaulting him and his Khalasi and snatched away Rs. 10,000/- from his pocket.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60481 of 2021(2) dt.06-06-2022 2/2 for anticipatory bail by submitting that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation.

Heard both the sides and perused the F.I.R.

The allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature which relates to loot and as per learned Additional Public Prosecutor the case is under investigation. There are two other criminal cases pending against the petitioner. In the light of these facts, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. (Shailendra Singh, J) kamlesh/- U T