Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Kumar Yadav @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66720 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2021 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== BIKASH KUMAR @ BIKASH KUMAR YADAV @ VIKASH KUMAR @ VIKASH KUMAR YADAV S/O BALENDRA YADAV R/O VILLAGESILWAY, P.S- HALSI, DISTT.- LAKHISARAI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Mohan Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Pandey (A.G.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 31-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barbigha P.S. Case No.35 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable u/s 379, 419, 420/34 of the IPC.

3.

Allegedly, one Sonu Kumar was trying to withdraw money from the account of the informant but was detained by the Bank officials and it was found that by using duplicate cheque he got transferred the amount from account of bank to his account and while withdrawing he was detained. Thereafter, he disclosed the name of petitioner as his associate. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66720 of 2023(2) dt.31-10-2023 2/2 He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. The name of petitioner transpired in this case on the confessional statement of the main assailant with whom petitioner has inimical terms. No incriminating article has recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T