Md. Arif v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 52466 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2022 Thana- MEHANDIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Md. Arif Son Of Izharul Haque Resident Of Village- Pirbais, Market Agarwal Tola Near Dharam Baniya, PS- Alamganj, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-08-2023 Heard Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mehandiganj P.S. Case No. 114 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly four unknown persons entered into the office of the informant and on the point of pistol looted Rs.1,58,962/- and other valuables and also assaulted the employees.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the FIR has been instituted against unknown persons, however during the course of investigation co-accused Suraj Kumar was apprehended in connection with Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 469 of 2022 and the name of the petitioner has sprung up in his confessional statement. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 52466 of 2023(2) dt.23-08-2023 2/2 submits that the confessional statement of co-accused before the police is hit by Sections 25/26 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such not admissible in the eyes of law on the basis of which the petitioner has been made accused. He also submits that no looted articles have been recovered from his whereabouts. He lastly submits that the petitioner has been made accused in another case but he is on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that during the course of investigation, cogent material has come against the petitioner, apart from his criminal antecedent.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the serious nature of offence of loot and assault, and the petitioner is carrying antecedent of one more criminal case of serious nature, this Court is not persuaded to allow the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. The application stands disposed of.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T