Patna High CourtCR. MISC./61240/2024dismissed

Vishal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-09-06Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61240 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Vishal Kumar Son of Anand Chauhan R/o Village- Kendua, P.S.- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya 2.

Suraj Kumar Son of Raju Chauhan R/o Village- Kendua, P.S.- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brijmohan Das For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Nimchakbathani P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The informant alleged that when he was travelling by train then some unknown persons came and started assaulting him thereafter snatched his mobile, purse containing cash of Rs. 5,500/- and other articles. He further alleged that after snatching all the articles, unknown persons locked him inside the toilet of the train.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61240 of 2024(2) dt.06-09-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners are not named in the FIR and on the basis of suspicion, they have been made accused in this case.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners by submitting that one co-accused has been arrested and on his confession, the name of the petitioners have figured in the present case. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected.

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