Jhunjhun Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66087 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2019 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== JHUNJHUN RAM Son of Sadhu Ji @ Sadhu Ram Resident of Village - Narsanda, P.S.- Chandi, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-10-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Chandi P.S. Case No.261 of 2019 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant disclosed that on 21.07.2019 while he was walking with his wife, three persons came on a motorcycle and robbed his mobile and other articles and also robbed chain made of gold from the neck of his wife. The informant raised alarm but the robbers fled away leaving their motorcycle on the spot. The informant identified the robbers as Parshuram Singh, Uday Saw and Jhunjhun Ram (petitioner). The three accused persons had earlier robbed mobile and cash from Kauleshwar Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66087 of 2019(2) dt.22-10-2019 2/2 petitioner is of course named in the F.I.R. but the informant himself filed compromise petition stating therein that due to mistake the informant named the petitioner. Uday Saw (one of the co-accused) has been granted regular bail by this court vide Cr.Misc.No.60851 of 2019. It is submitted that in view of the compromise petition, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. It appears that the petitioner and two others robbed mobile and other articles from the informant and his wife and looted mobile of the informant was recovered from Parshuram Singh. On the face of it, it appears that the petitioner made an attempt to tamper with the evidence and to influence the petitioner, who compromised the case.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T