Sachida Nand Kumar @ Sachida Nand Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56763 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2021 Thana- MARAUNA District- Supaul ====================================================== SACHIDA NAND KUMAR @ SACHIDA NAND BHARTI Son of Satya Narayan Yadav @ Ram Krishna Raman Resident of Village- Bodrahi, P.S.- Marauna, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 20-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offence punishable u/s 414/34 of IPC.

Allegedly, on secret information, informant along with other police personnel reached at Marauna Chowk and they found that two persons riding on a red colour Apache motorcycle were coming towards Marauna Chowk. On seeing the police party they tried to fled away, but they were apprehended by the informant with the help of police party. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56763 of 2022(2) dt.20-12-2022 2/2 the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The entire prosecution version is full of concoction and fabrication. Stolen motorcycle is recover from the possession of co-accused Palot Yadav and Indrajeet Kumar Yadav not the petitioner. Neither any documents nor stolen motorcycle were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He is not the owner of the motorcycle. Only with intent to save themselves, co-accused has wrongly stated that they have purchased the said motorcycle from the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since petitioner's name was transpired on the basis of confessional statement of apprehended co-accused, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T