Vibhesh Kumar Gurmaita v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60014 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2020 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Vibhesh Kumar Gurmaita, Son of Binod Gurmaita, Resident of Village Chaturbhuj Piprahi, P.S Laukaha, District Madhubani ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 345 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. He has no criminal antecedent.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 11.12.2020 when the informant along with his co-villager, namely, Md. Anwar was going to garage, three persons intercepted them and assaulted him. They asked him to give the key of the motorcycle which the informant denied whereafter they placed gun on his temporal region, snatched the key of the bike and mobile phone of the co-villager. The informant has identified the three persons as Durgesh Kumar, Vibhesh Kumar Gurmaita (this petitioner) and Binod Ram.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60014 of 2023(2) dt.11-10-2023 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that due to non-supporting in the election and old enmity, the present FIR has been lodged.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been identified by the informant as one of the accused who had intercepted the informant, placed gun on his temporal region, assaulted him and snatched the key of the bike and also snatched the mobile phone from the co-villager of the informant, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Prayer is refused.

8. In case, the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

9. This application is dismissed.

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