Sanoj Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55190 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2019 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar ====================================================== SANOJ PASWAN Son of Dharamchandra Paswan, Resident of Village - Fasiya, P.S.- Katihar Nagar, Distt - Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Korha P.S. Case No.238 of 2019 registered under Sections 394, 411, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant alleged that while he was returning after withdrawal of Rs.77,000/-, kept in a bag, from S.B.I. and reached at Semapur Corner, four persons on two motorcycles came and snatched the bag and money from possession of the informant at the point of pistol. On chase made by the police and the villagers, two accused persons were apprehended and from their possession, Rs.77,000/- and cheque book were recovered. The apprehended accused also opened fire in which the bhanja of the informant got firearm injury. The apprehended accused disclosed the names of two accused, namely, Suraj Sah

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55190 of 2019(2) dt.03-09-2019 2/2 and Sanoj Paswan, who managed to flee away towards Katihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of petitioner figured in the case only on the basis of confessional statement or so-called disclosure made by coaccused, who are alleged to have been apprehended on the spot and save and except the statement of the co-accused, there is no material against the petition, but it appears that it is a case of road robbery in which four persons on two motorcycles came and robbed the informant. On chase, two persons were apprehended and the apprehended accused disclosed the names of the petitioner. The informant also claimed to identify the accused persons. From the apprehended accused, Rs.77,000/- and cheque book were recovered. The apprehended accused also disclosed that the accused persons, who managed to flee away, took Rs.20,000/- from the pocket of the informant. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T