Raghuvir Kumar @ Sonu v. Union Of India Through Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65977 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2017 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna ====================================================== RAGHUVIR KUMAR @ SONU S/o Sri Baijyanath Singh R/o villageAnkuri, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.I. PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.P. N. Shahi, Sr.Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sourendra Pandey, SC, CBI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-08-2022 Heard Sri P.N.Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Sourendra Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in R.C.Case No. 01(S)/2017 registered for the offence under Sections 120(B), 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 209, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the I.T.Act. As per the prosecution case, this petitioner was in regular touch with one Arun Kumar Tiwari, who was mastermind behind the alleged occurrence.
It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65977 of 2021(6) dt.22-08-2022 2/3 several occasion, the petitioner was interrogated by the I.O. of the case. Not only this, he was produced before the court below and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 07.11.2017 in the instant case as well as in R.C. No. 04(S)/16. It is further submitted that chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no allegation of tampering with the evidence against this petitioner. However, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I. vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that during course of investigation, petitioner was examined and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which, he has admitted his guilt and stated the fact that he had taken Rs. 20,000/- from accused persons.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the fact that chargesheet has already been submitted and petitioner has cooperated during investigation, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is allowed. Let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bailbond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Magistrate, CBI, Patna in connection with R.C.Case No. 01(S)/2017,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65977 of 2021(6) dt.22-08-2022 3/3 subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T