Dismissed

Md. Nawab @ Pintu v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC19 Mar 2014CR. MISC./53788/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court, in an oral order, declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of snatching under Section 392 IPC. The court held that the case for bail was not made out, citing circumstantial evidence against the petitioner and noting a female informant.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below to pray for regular bail.

Md. Nawab @ Pintu Vs The State Of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53788 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. Md. Nawab @ Pintu Son Of Md. Yunus R/O Mohalla- Samir Takiya, P.S.- Civil Line And District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 2 19-03-2014 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2 for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶4

Petitioner herein is facing accusations vide Rampur P.S. Case No. 174 of 2013 instituted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

As per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., the informant while returning from the school after dropping her child was intercepted by two persons riding a motorcycle. The gold chain and mangalsutra was/were snatched. The F.I.R. was drawn against unknown. In course of investigation, the name of the petitioner transpired giving cause of action to the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the confessional statement of the accused Shashi, there is no evidence/material directly incriminating the petitioner in the

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53788 of 2013 (2) dt.19-03-2014

¶8

¶9

alleged crime. The petitioner has clean antecedent.

¶10

Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, referring to the observations made in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge submits that the owner of the motorcycle in his statement before the Police has stated that the motorcycle was demanded and taken away by the petitioner and Shahi and it is submitted that there is circumstance evidencing implication of the petitioner in the case.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not satisfied that the case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. Let the petitioner surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail which in the event of such surrender shall be considered on its own merit and disposed of in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order.

¶13

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶14

Pankaj/-

Md. Nawab @ Pintu v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nawab @ Pintu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha Sinha and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Birendra Mishra Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bimal Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Murari Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Pundeo Paswan and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Tuntun Mishra and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar