Sanny Singh @ Sanny Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77033 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-340 Year-2022 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Sanny Singh @ Sanny Kumar Son of Jitendra Singh Resident of Village - Naya Panapur (Chiraiya Tok), P.S. - Akilpur, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sonpur P.S. Case No. 340 of 2022 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. has been lodged against 6-7 named accused persons including the present petitioner against whom there is an allegation of committing dacoity and looted Rs. 5,96,000/- case along with the mobile phone from Uttar Gramin Bank Govindchak at Sonpur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that he has clean antecedent. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Neither incriminating article nor cash has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77033 of 2024(2) dt.18-01-2025 2/2 recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner's name has been figured in the confession statement of the accused person who has been arrested namely Krishna Kumar.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the offences is serious in nature and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner can hamper the investigation.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R. and impugned order dated 09.04.2024, it appears that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but his name has been figured in this case by the person who has been arrested which seems that petitioner is also involved in the alleged crime. So, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and serious nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) sunnykr/- U