Pintu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53253 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2023 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== PINTU YADAV @ PINTU KUMAR son of Meghan Yadav @ Maithan Yadav Village- Partapi Ps- Barachatti Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-08-2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioner, who was earlier working as guard, along with co-accused Ramesh Kumar, who is working as guard in VRC pvt. Ltd company, committed theft of Saria (iron rod) at V.R.C. Camp whose involvement came into light after perusal of CCTV footage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53253 of 2023(2) dt.28-08-2023 2/3 Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel further submits that in fact no occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on account of local politics. No incriminating article has been recovered either from the house or from the possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been made from co-accused Ramesh Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that earlier petitioner had also worked as Security Guard in the said V.R.C. (I) Pvt. Ltd. Company but just two months ago of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner left the Company because his monthly payment was not being paid to him timely, therefore, some altercation was made with the informant and that is why the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioner, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53253 of 2023(2) dt.28-08-2023 3/3 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. - IInd, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkr/- U T