Raj Kumar Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61322 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2018 Thana- KHARIK District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Raj Kumar Pandit Son of Mahesh Pandit @ Maheswar Pandit Resident of Village - Dadpur, P.S.- Kharik, Dist.- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kharik P.S. Case No. 198 of 2018, registered under Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Naugachia, Bhagalpur.

The accusation is that in course of patrolling duty, informant along with other police personnel searched the house of Maheshwar Pandit in village Dadpur, where five motorcycles were recovered. On demand, Maheshwar Pandit did not produce any payer regarding the aforesaid motorcycles. Thereafter, police party searched the house of Lakhan Mandal, from where, four motorcycles were also recovered and on demand, Lakhan

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61322 of 2019(2) dt.15-10-2019 2/2 Mandal also did not produce any paper of motorcycles. On query, Maheshwar Pandit disclosed that his son, Raj Kumar Pandit (petitioner), Lakhan Mandal and Mithelesh Pandit used to commit theft of motorcycle and sale the same in the locality. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, in fact, petitioner is the son of co-accused, Maheshwar Pandit, from whose house, five motorcycles were recovered due to that reason, petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 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 trial 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) Bhardwaj/- U T