Ankit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71559 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2018 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== ANKIT KUMAR Son of Vipin Ray Resident of Village - Parmanandpur Chakdara, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Prakash Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-08-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as, Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 124 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, when the informant was returning with his Truck, six persons on two motorcycles stopped his Truck and assaulted him with butt of the pistol and snatched rupees five lac fifty thousand from his possession. The villagers apprised their names as Ankit Kumar and Rohit Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71559 of 2021(2) dt.01-08-2022 2/2 petitioner is a person of clean antecedent. They were protesting against the illegal act of the informant and it was the reason that they have falsely been implicated.

On the other hand, Sri. Shailendra Kumar, has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the present petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against him that along with other miscreants he snatched rupees five lac fifty thousand from the possession of the informant.

From the perusal of paragraph No. 3, it appears that a number of cases of similar nature are pending against the present petitioner. It is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T