Raja Singh @ Abhishek Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77410 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2019 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Raja Singh @ Abhishek Kumar Singh son of Ashok Kumar Singh@ Harendra Singh, Resident of Village- Gyanpur, Police Station - Barahara, District - Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2019 Heard both sides.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Barahara( Sinha O.P.) P.S. Case No.200 of 2019 registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that while the informant, being driver of the tractor, was going to deliver sand to the house of one Ravindra Yadav of village-Gyanpur, five unknown persons, armed with different weapons, came in front of his tractor and got the tractor stopped and snatched Mahabiri locket, Samsung Mobile set, cash and other articles and, thereafter, all accused persons fled away with his tractor and looted articles. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and name of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77410 of 2019(2) dt.28-11-2019 2/2 figured in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Krishna Kumar Pathak, from whose possession looted tractor was recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a disable person, but it appears that not only name of the petitioner surfaced in this case in the confessional statement of co-accused Krishna Kumar Pathak, from whose possession looted tractor was recovered, but from C.D.R. calls of Mobile of the petitioner, the fact has come that the petitioner was also around the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and the fact that it is a case of road dacoity, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) nawalkrs/- U T