This oral order rejected a petition for anticipatory bail in a robbery case under IPC Section 392. The court dissociated itself from the sole ground of recovery of stolen articles from the petitioner's shop and denied bail.
Anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16199 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-603 Year-2019 Thana- BUXAR District- Buxar
======================================================
Binod Seth @ Vinod Kumar Son of Sri Uma Shankar Verma Resident of Mohalla - Stuwarganj, Ward no. 7, Mohania, P.S.- Mohania, District - Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2. 04-09-2020
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
This relates to grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner in Buxar (Town) P.S. Case No. 603 of 2016 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per F.I.R., the informant has alleged that on the request of one Manish Verma (co-accused), he had opened his jewellery shop early in the morning at 6:30 AM on 23-08-2019 and he was displaying ornaments to him, in the meantime, two other culprits came there and on the gun point, all the three looted away ornaments worth Rs. Thirty lacs. The informant has also alleged that his mobile phone was also taken away by the accused person.
It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16199 of 2020(2) dt.04-09-2020 2/2
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of petitioner has surfaced during investigation on the confessional statement of co-accused Deepak Kumar Verma. Save and except this, there is nothing against the petitioner. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.
However, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and he submits that the stolen articles have been recovered from the shop of petitioner on the confession of co-accused Deepak Kumar Verma.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.)
anay
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is not named in the FIR but whose shop was allegedly the scene of recovery of stolen goods?
Whether the petitioner is guilty based on the recovery of stolen articles from his shop under coercive circumstances?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Binod Seth @ Vinod Kumar
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
