Anil Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63010 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-505 Year-2023 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Anil Mukhiya son of Umesh Mukhiya Vill- Maheshwar Tole Kolhatta, Ps -Rosera, Dist -Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 505 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379, 384, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, all the FIR named accused persons including this petitioner surrounded and abused informant and thereafter this petitioner put pistol on chest of informant and demanded extortion of Rs. 2 lakhs. It is further alleged that co-accused Dinesh Mukhiya took away Rs. 2500 from pocket of informant and also 65 kg fish.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Specific accusation of snatching Rs. 2500/- and 65
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63010 of 2024(2) dt.21-09-2024 2/2 kg fish is against co-accused Dinesh Mukhiya.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against this petitioner that he put pistol on chest of informant and demanded extortion of Rs. 2 lakhs and petitioner has got 3 criminal antecedents. Hence, he does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the nature of accusation and the long criminal history of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T