Satish Pal @ Satish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61153 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2016 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SATISH PAL @ SATISH KUMAR S/o Umesh Pal R/o Village- Chamandi, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-02-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Paras Bigha P.S. Case No. 132 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per FIR, eight unknown miscreants stopped the truck of the informant who was resident of Allahabad, U.P. The miscreants fled away with truck after tying the informant and throwing him and his friend on the bank of the canal. During the course of investigation co-accused Kunesh Kumar @ Lufua was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61153 of 2021(3) dt.18-02-2022 2/2 arrested, he gave vivid description of the occurrence and also made averment about complicity of the present petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is nothing in the case diary except the confessional statement of the co-accused, Kunesh Kumar @ Lufua, against the petitioner.

Paragraph No-3 of the bail petition shows that the petitioner is also involved in another case of dacoity i.e. Kurtha (Manikpur) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2016 under section 395 of the I.P.C. Investigation is still going on. As such, I do not think it a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T