Toujib v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65161 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2021 Thana- BAHADURGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== TOUJIB Son of Majebul Rahman Resident of Village- Tappu Kalagachh, P.S.- Dighalbank, District- Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 384, 385, 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Bahadurganj P.S.Case No. 235 of 2021.

As per allegation made in the FIR, when the informant was going by his motor-cycle some persons came there by a four-wheeler. They apprised the informant that they were police personnel. They assaulted the informant with slaps. They took his mobile and Rs. 1000/- and forcibly got him seated in their vehicle and one of their associates took the motor-cycle and followed their vehicle. On hue and cry, the villagers intercepted their vehicle. Two miscreants fled away and one

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65161 of 2021(2) dt.21-07-2022 2/2 was arrested who disclosed his name as Md. Ashik and also disclosed the names of miscreants who fled away as Md. Toujib (present petitioner) and Md. Saud.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was not arrested at the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession and his name figured in the confessional statement of co-accused who was arrested at the spot. He has submitted further that the petitioner is a co-villager of the informant.

The petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature, as such, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. His prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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