Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58228/2024rejected

Manny Singh @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-17Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58228 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-941 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Manny Singh @ Manish Kumar S/o Kavi Singh @ Kavinandan Singh R/o Surkhikal Bhatta, Medical Quarter, Jhoparpatti, P.S. - Kotwali (Barari), Distt. - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Kotwali (Barari) P.S Case No. 941 of 2023 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 of I.P.C and under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, It is alleged that some miscreants were apprehended by police with arms and ammunition and they disclosed that their associates (petitioner and others) were fled away who were armed with country made pistols.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58228 of 2024(2) dt.17-01-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has two criminal antecedent except this case. He also submits that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He has been falsely been implicated in this case.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., seizure list, impugned order and case diary, it appears that petitioner has two criminal antecedents. Further allegation is that accused persons assembled there for making plan for committing offence and they were armed.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T