Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62618 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2021 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== GUDDU YADAV @ GUDDU KUMAR Son of Birbahadur Yadav Resident of Village - Lauwalagan, P.S.- Chousa, Distt.- Madhepura, Pin-852213 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Madhepura.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused snatched money from the informant on the gun point.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62618 of 2021(3) dt.14-11-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R only on the confessional statement of the co-accused the petitioner is made accused in this case. He further submits that no any incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that other co-accused was apprehended in other case in which petitioner is not an accused person. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No.45 of 2021. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T