Dinesh Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73021 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2023 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Dinesh Sah S/o Late Gurkan Sah R/o village - Patiyasa, P.S. - Ahiyapur, Dist. - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-11-2024
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Mahindwara Police Station Case No. 17 of 2023, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 379/461/411 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that in the night of 14.07.2023, the informant heard some sound coming out of his shop and when he reached near his shop, he was a pick-up van standing near his shop and also found the lock of his shop broken. When the informant raised alarm, the driver of the pick-up van and two other persons tried to fee away along with the pick-up van, but on chase, the petitioner, along with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73021 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 2/2 villagers, stopped the pick-up van but the driver and two other persons succeeded in fleeing away. He further submits that when he compared the articles present in the pick-up van, he found the articles of his shop.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he happens to be the owner of the pick-van. He further submits that the petitioner was coming to deliver the goods of the informant, but due to dispute of fare, this false case has been lodged by the informant.
5. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √