Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76472/2023dismissed

Mukesh Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-05Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76472 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2022 Thana- GUTHANI District- Siwan ====================================================== MUKESH PANDEY S/O RAJMANGAL PANDEY VILLAGE- BHITAULI, PS. DARAULI, DIST. SIWAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satyendra Rai, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Guthani P.S. Case No. 201 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, 15 unknown miscreants entered the house of the informant and looted all jewelries and cash Rs. 50,000/- at gun point.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. He is not named in the FIR. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Nothing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76472 of 2023(2) dt.05-12-2023 2/2 has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. His name has been transpired in the present case on the basis of his criminal antecedent. There is nothing on record to indicate the complicity of the petitioner barring the confessional statement of the apprehended person Lorik Yadav which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Petitioner has ten criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T