Patna High CourtCR. MISC./86471/2024dismissed

Ankit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-18Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86471 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2024 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Ankit Kumar S/o Rajballam Prasad R/o Village- Sukhdev Bigha, P.S.- Kako, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 95 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392/394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was driving the snatched vehilce.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in this case on the confessional statement of apprehended co-accused. It is further submitted that the mobile number through which Ola was booked does not belong to the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86471 of 2024(2) dt.18-12-2024 2/2 omnibus in nature. Petitioner has three criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was driving the snatched vehicle. Petitioner has three criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

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