← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./84645/2023dismissed

Bigyan Kumar @ Vigyan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-15Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84645 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2022 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== BIGYAN KUMAR @ VIGYAN KUMAR S/O RAJENDRA MOCHI @ RAJENDRA DAS R/O VILLAGE- TETARPUR, P.S.- TEKARI (PANCHANANPUR O.P.), DISTRICT- GAYA (BIHAR) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 15-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No.96 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 379 of IPC.

3.

Allegation against the petitioner is that from his house a stolen motorcycle has been recovered.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case merely on suspicion. There is no compliance of section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and no person was present in the house of the petitioner. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84645 of 2023(3) dt.15-05-2024 2/2 physical possession of the petitioner. The said house from which recovery has been made remains close as nobody reside there. Only on the basis of earlier cases filed against the petitioner, he has been made accused in the present case. Petitioner has two criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that the recovery of motorcycle has been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

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