Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48441/2017rejected

Bambam Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-16Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48441 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 2017 Thana -JAMALPUR RAIL P.S. District- LAKHISARAI ====================================================== Bambam Mandal, Son of Shyam Sundar Mandal, resident of VillagePariya, P.S.- Bariyarpur, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-10-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Jamalpur Rail P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017, registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway Kiul (Lakhisarai). The accusation is that informant along with his other family members boarded in Howrah-Gaya train at Bhagalpur and he kept his luggage on the upper seat. It is alleged that near Sultanganj railway station, three persons boarded in the same bogie and sat on the upper seat, they were aged about 35-40 years and there activities were suspicious. After sometime, when the train reached at Baryarpur station they got down to train then he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48441 of 2017 (2) dt.16-10-2017 2/2 checked his bags and found zip of the bag was open and he also found missing of Rs. 1,50,000/- and ornaments kept in the bag. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. in course of investigation the name of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of C.C. TV footage as he was crossing the railway tract at that time. Further submission is that in fact the petitioner is accused in three other cases in similar nature and due to that reasons, he has falsely been implicated in this case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T