← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68505/2022rejected

Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-03-24Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68505 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-397 Year-2022 Thana- MANER District- Patna ====================================================== CHANDAN KUMAR S/O DEV KUMAR RAI Resident of VillageBrahamchari Pokhara, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Upendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Maner P.S. Case No.397 of 2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 353, 224, 225/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is nothing against the petitioner except the fact that he fled away after arrest in another case.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner stating that while the police party raided and nabbed one Ranjan Kumar and Chandan Kumar (petitioner), who were wanted in Maner P.S.Case No.396 of 2022, some accused persons instigated and mobilized the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68505 of 2022(5) dt.24-03-2023 2/2 villagers to attack the police party for releasing the petitioner illegally from police custody. As a result of which, the petitioner managed to flee away. He further submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation as well as criminal history of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Harish/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T