Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53503/2018rejected

Virendra Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-19Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53503 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -18 Year- 2016 Thana -MOKAMA RAIL P.S. District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Virendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Ayodhya Choudhary, R/o Naya Tola, Municipal Area, Ward No. -10, P.S.- Lakhisaray, Distt.- Lakhisarai, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 19-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP.

On account of issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner relating to Mokama (Hathidah) Rail PS Case No. 18/2016, instant petition for an anticipatory bail as provided under Section 438 CrPC has been filed on behalf of petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he happens to be a mobile mechanic. Customers used to visit his shop for repairing of the mobile. That being so, criminal liability could not be fasten upon him in the background of the fact that stolen mobile set was being used by him under his SIM number. That being so, asked for release of the petitioner on bail in anticipation of an arrest.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53503 of 2018 (3) dt.19-09-2018 Informant, a passenger in a way to her destination was deprived of her belongings by unknown thief near Hathidah Railway Station. Items which were stolen away have been properly detailed including that of two mobile sets. I.O. during course of investigation has taken out call details and as is evident from para-54, the same was found to be under use by the petitioner having SIM No. 9162429477. It is further evident from para-69 that petitioner was directed to be physically present on 12.01.2017. The case diary of 12.01.2017 which begins right from paragraph-71 to 76, did not disclose presence of petitioner though, controverted at the end of petitioner.

Accordingly, prayer is refused.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez U T