Patna High CourtCR. MISC./86128/2024dismissed

Hashim Miayn @ Hashim Miyan v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-17Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86128 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2024 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Hashim Miayn @ Hashim Miyan Son of Manzoor Alam Resident of village -Olaha, PS- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Karandeep Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 216 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 of 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant got information that near village Bhada Pul on road five miscreants riding with two motorcycle were planning to commit dacoity. For verification, he along with other police personnel reached there and on seeing the police personnel miscreants tried to flee away. Two miscreants were apprehended along with one bullet motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86128 of 2024(2) dt.17-12-2024 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., but his name transpired in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Manjit Kumar. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case.

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

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