Petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail in a case under sections 420 and 379 IPC. The court rejected the plea holding that the co-accused's confessional statement indicated the petitioner's complicity, making him not a fit case for bail.
Petition for anticipatory bail rejected as petitioner is not a fit case.
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.14156 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2018 Thana- CIVIL LINE District- Gaya
======================================================
RAJENDRA PRASAD Son of Karu Sao, Resident of Mohalla- Bageshwari, Near Bambaba, P.S.- Delha, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2022
The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Civil Line P.S. Case No. 175 of 2018 registered for offence punishable under sections 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused Rahul Kumar was drawee of the alleged fake cheque and in his confessional statement, the name of the present petitioner has been figured. He has further submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14156 of 2021(3) dt.23-02-2022 2/2
that the alleged cheque was not deposited in the account of the present petitioner.
The co-accused Rahul Kumar has furnished his self inculpatory confessional statement and has stated that the present petitioner has given him Rs. 10,000/- and also provided his Aadhar Card, thereafter, the petitioner went to the branch of Canara Bank and opened the account. The complicity of the present petitioner is also emerging in the confessional statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar. As such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J)
Mahesh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for anticipatory bail in connection with a cheating and theft case.
Whether the inculpatory confessional statement of the co-accused impels complicity sufficient to reject anticipatory bail.
Rajendra Prasad
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
