Md. Farukh @ Umar Faruk @ Md. Faruk v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72243 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2022 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Farukh @ Umar Faruk @ Md. Faruk Son of Israel @ Md. Israil Resident of village - Madhura, Police Station - Narpatganj, Distt.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 29-10-2024 Heard Mr. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Raghopur P.S. Case No. 195 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. While the informant was engaged in purchasing vegetables, some unknown miscreants are said to have stolen his motorcycle from Simrahi Durga Mandir.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The petitioner's name surfaced in this case on the confessional statement of apprehended co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Petitioner is only the bona fide

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72243 of 2024(2) dt.29-10-2024 2/2 purchaser of the stolen motorcycle. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has four criminal antecedents and all are for similar nature of the offence.

5. Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that from seeing the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, there is no scintilla of doubt that petitioner is a habitual offender who is engaged in committing such type of crime. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U %