Sri Ram Kumar @ Satyam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72726 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2022 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sri Ram Kumar @ Satyam Son Of Satyendra Singh R/V Korlahiya Mansingh,Ward No. 6, Ps. Mahindwara, Distt - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Smt. Divya Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-11-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahindwara P.S Case No. 110 of 2022 dated 16.07.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, on seeing the police, 4-5 unknown miscreants started fleeing away but two miscreants were apprehended by the police who disclosed their names as Shiv Kumar and Bhavan Kumar and they also disclosed the name of the miscreants who fled away as Ram Kumar (the petitioner), Rahul

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72726 of 2023(2) dt.22-11-2023 2/2 Kumar, Sanjit Kumar and Sanjog Kumar. On search of the coaccused Shiv Kumar, one loaded country-made pistol and sharp knife were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Bhavan Kumar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is accused in one more criminal case as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Sitamarhi in connection with Mahindwara P.S Case No. 110 of 2022 , subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. The application stands allowed.

Atul/- (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U T