Anirudh Ram @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8400 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -288 Year- 2016 Thana -DUMRAUN District- BUXAR ====================================================== ANIRUDH RAM @ CHHOTU, son of Nana Lal Ram, resident of village - Naya Bhojpur, Police Station - Dumraon, District - Buxar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Nath, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since 02.12.2016 in connection with Dumraon P.S. Case No. 288 of 2016 for the offences instituted under Section 394 of the IPC. Later on, Sections 395, 397, 412 and 120(B) of the IPC were also added. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.11.2016 at about 6.15 A.M., the informant alongwith his brother was going to Dumraon Station on a red colour Scooty, when they reached near Brahm Baba More, three miscreants riding on a Pulsar Bike stopped them. Two of the miscreants alighted from the Bike and surrounded the informant and his brother. Three miscreants started snatching the bag containing cash when the informant raised

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8400 of 2017 (3) dt.21-04-2017 2/2 objection, the miscreants assaulted on his head with the butt of the pistol. After this, all miscreants snatched the bag containing Rs. 10,000/- and fled away towards station. Bike used in the offence was not having any number plate and was black in colour. The informant claims to have identified the miscreants. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 02.12.2016 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering of the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. He is not named in the F.I.R.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner's name has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused and the looted amount is said to have been recovered from possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was put on T.I. Parade where he has been identified by the witnesses. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in Dumraon P.S. Case No. 288 of 2016, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T