Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.74071 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2018 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Ritubhanjan Singh, Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Shakurabad, District- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subhash Chandra Bose For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2019 Heard both sides.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Shakurabad P.S. Case No.123 of 2018 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, an agent of IndusInd Bank, alleged that while he was returning after collecting money from the loanees, three unknown persons came on a Pulsar motorcycle having no registration number and at the point of pistol snatched Rs.44,350/- from his possession. They also snatched online payment machine, two mobiles bearing number 9661494742 and 7070897902.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner figured in the case in the confessional statement of one Ujjawal

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.74071 of 2018(3) dt.09-01-2019 2/2 Kumar who is on inimical term with the petitioner. It is further submitted that save and except the confession, there is no tangible material against the petitioner but it appears that it is a case of road robbery in which the agent of IndusInd Bank was robbed and different articles including cash and mobiles were looted. The name of the petitioner figured in the case in the confessional statement of the co-accused. The informant claimed to identify the robbers and the case requires identification after arrest of the accused. Petitioner has also got criminal antecedent.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T