Amar Pratap Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19387 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -574 Year- 2016 Thana -SITAMARHI District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Amar Pratap Singh, Son of Surendra Singh @ Surendra Pratap Singh, resident of village - Sah Mohammad Dumari, P.S. Paroo, District - Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Anusuiya Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 574 of 2016, registered under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

The accusation is that informant being the Officer-inCharge Sitamarhi received information about gathering of miscreants for making plan to commit heinous crime near Gudri bazaar. The informant along with other Police officials reached there then some persons started fleeing, but one of them was apprehended with the motorcycle, while 4-5 persons succeeded to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19387 of 2017 (5) dt.20-07-2017 2/2 flee away. The apprehended person disclosed his name as Nitesh Jha @ Bittu Jha, who also disclosed the name of his other four associates, including the petitioner, and he was found in possession of country made pistol and cartridges and also cash of Rs. 7200/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. that the name of the petitioner has been surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Nitesh Jha, who was apprehended by the Police on the spot with country made pistol, cartridges and cash.

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. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T