Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50068 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2018 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== RAUSHAN KUMAR @ RAUSHAN YADAV Son of Vindeshwar Kumar Chaudhary Permanent Add.- Resident of e/4b Railway Colony, Bhagwatiganj, P.S.- Balrampur, District - Balrampur , State - Uttar Pradesh Presently residing at Vill.- Paharpur Purvi, P.S.- Jurawanpur, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Mohiuddinnagar Police Station Case No. 199 of 2018, disclosing offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is not named in the First Information Report.

The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant, while going to his house after closing the shop of his father, was surrounded by four persons and robbed of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as well as a samsung

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50068 of 2019(4) dt.16-11-2019 2/3 mobile set on the point of pistol.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of statement made by co-accused Pankaj Kumar. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and submits, referring to paragraph 34 of the case diary, that co-accused Pankaj Kumar has vividly narrated the entire description of the occurrence and involvement of the petitioner in the same. He, referring to paragraph 94 of the case diary, further submits that the petitioner was in regular touch with co-accused Pankaj Kumar through the seized mobile phone from 26.12.2018 to 30.12.2018.

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the case is at initial stage of investigation and the custodial interrogation may be required, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50068 of 2019(4) dt.16-11-2019 3/3