Pandav Tanti @ Panda Tanti @ Pandu Tanti v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80050 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-527 Year-2017 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Pandav Tanti @ Panda Tanti @ Pandu Tanti S/O Late Tarni Tanti VillageRohan Chak Lane Near Durga Andir Aliganj (MAHESHPUR), Ps. Babarganj O.P. (MOJAHIDPUR), Dist. Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Madhuri Lata ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 15-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kotwali (Tilakmanjhi) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2017, registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and later Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent mentioned in Para 3 of the bail application. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. During course of investigation, some of the accused persons was apprehended and they disclosed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80050 of 2023(2) dt.15-12-2023 2/2 name of the petitioner that petitioner was also involved in the present case. Police has filed the chargesheet against some of the accused persons. Investigation is going on. He further submits that no incriminating articles has been recovered from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned APP for the State has opposes the prayer for bail, he also relied on judgment of Indresh Kumar vs. the State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2022).
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and Ratio laid down in case of Indresh Kumar vs. the State of U.P. & Anr. (supra) this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable before this Court, hence his prayer for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Ranjeet/- U T