Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53951/2023dismissed

Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-31Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53951 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2020 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Singh Son Of Rama Singh Resident Of Village-Gardih, P.S.- Salaiya, District-Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Braj Kishore Pd.(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 31-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Madanpur P.S. Case No. 261 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar).

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused persons overtake the truck of informant and by his Bolero and stopped it and four people got down from it and made him to sit in the Bolero and took him to Gurwa hill and snatched his mobile phone ATM card, Aadhar card, Pan card, licence and Rs. 15,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53951 of 2023(2) dt.31-08-2023 2/2 case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got one criminal antecedent of similar nature as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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