Dismissed

Sunny @ Sunny Mian @ Md. Imran v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jun 2013CR. MISC./5459/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Section 392 IPC. The court held it was not a fit case due to the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the non-naming in the F.I.R., though a future regular bail application would not be prejudiced.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. Regular bail application filed later shall not be prejudiced.

Sunny @ Sunny Mian @ Md. Imran Vs The State Of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5459 of 2013 (4) dt.18-06-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5459 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== Sunny @ Sunny Mian @ Md. Imran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 18-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶4

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2012 registered for the offence punishable under Section-392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

No doubt, the petitioner is not named in the first information report but in course of investigation, one co-accused, Subhash Mandal was arrested by the police and on the basis of his confessional statement, looted motorcycle and other articles were recovered.

¶6

The aforesaid Subhash Mandal named the petitioner disclosing this fact that he was also involved in the commission of crime. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the petitioner carries criminal antecedent.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5459 of 2013 (4) dt.18-06-2013

¶9

so far as criminal antecedent of the petitioner is concerned, in almost all the cases, the petitioner has either been acquitted or compromise petition has already been filed. He further submits that except so-called confessional statement of co-accused, there is nothing against the petitioner and it is well settled principle of law that the confessional statement of co-accused does not have any evidentiary value.

¶10

Regard being had to the facts and circumstanced of the case as well as submission of the parties, in my view, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail in the above-said case pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur stands rejected.

¶11

However, if, any regular bail petition is filed before the learned trial court, this order shall not prejudice to the mind of learned court below at the time of consideration of regular bail application of the petitioner.

¶12

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

¶13

A.K.V./-

Sunny @ Sunny Mian @ Md. Imran v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny @ Sunny Mian @ Md. Imran v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanehaya @ Bibek Kumar @ Kanhaiya Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Smt. Seema Singh @ Bobby Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar

Ajay Yadav @ Anjay Yadav and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Krishna Gupta @ Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar

Binod Kumar @ Guddu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ashok Yadav @ Ashok Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.