← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6692/2023dismissed

Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-16Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6692 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-601 Year-2018 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR Son of Ashok Chauhan R/O village - Konia, P.S.- Sarbahda (Khijarsarai), District - Gaya (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kabita Devi Wife of Rahul Kumar D/O Banbari Chauhan, R/O village - Amipur, P.S.- Muffasil Nawada, District - Nawada (Bihar) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subodh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP Mr.Vivek Kumar Sinha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 16-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.601/2018, registered for the offence punishable u/s 498(A), 323, 341, 504, 379 of the IPC. 3.

At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 that in the bail petition, at para-3, it is mentioned that petitioner has no criminal antecedent but he has got knowledge that petitioner has two criminal antecedent. In support of his contention, he drew the attention of this Court towards an order passed by this Court dated 04.07.2023 in Cr. Misc. No.17207 of 2023, in which, the petitioner's name was at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6692 of 2023(4) dt.16-08-2023 2/2 serial no.3 and in the same order, it was stated that petitioner has one criminal antecedent. As such, the present petitioner, who has suppressed his criminal antecedent does not deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

4.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and the materials available on record, without going into the merits of this case, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected as a result of suppression of fact.

5.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

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