Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60504/2025bail rejected

Munilal Sahani @ Munni Lal Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-08Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60504 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2023 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Munilal Sahani @ Munni Lal Sahani S/O Dhenukha Sahani R/O VillageWard No. 12, Baraharwa, P.S.- Motihari Mufassil, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh , Advocate For the State :

Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code were added.

3. As per prosecution case, on 20.07.2023, while the informant was on his way, in the meantime, some unidentified persons intercepted him, pointed pistol on his head and snatched Rs. 1,17,000/- cash and two ATM cards. One co-accused persons was apprehended from one car of which this petitioner is registered owner.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60504 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 2/2 implicated in this case merely because he happens to be owner of the vehicle in question. No stolen article has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle which was used in commission of the offence.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the fact that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle which was used in commission of the crime, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T