Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53540/2018dismissed

Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-10-08Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53540 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 2018 Thana -JAIPUR District- BANKA ====================================================== Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar, S/o Shankar Yadav, R/o Vill.- Dighibandh, P.S.- Jaipur, District- Banka.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, APP 132 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-10-2018 Mr. Sir Pramod Kumar Pandey (APP 120) who has been entrusted with this case is not present in Court. Therefore, this Court is authorizing Sri Satyendra Narain Singh, learned APP 132 to argue this matter after perusal of the case diary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Jaipur P.S. Case No.13 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR, but no role has been attributed to him and the entire case is based on mere suspicion.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53540 of 2018 (3) dt.08-10-2018 On the other hand, learned APP for the State and the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner is one of the persons who has participated in the alleged occurrence and in fact his name has also transpired in course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused at whose instance the weapon which was used in the murder has been recovered.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U T