The High Court of Patna rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail, ruling that their strong criminal antecedents of a similar nature disqualified them from this privilege. The court also directed the removal of defects in the petition.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected; defects in petition to be removed within one month.
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.4824 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2018 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 23-08-2022
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove
all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 99 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 457, 382 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per allegation, in the midnight at about 12.00 a.m., some unknown persons after entering into the house of the informant committed theft of ornaments detailed in the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they were not arrested at the spot. Nothing was recovered from their pos-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4824 of 2022(2) dt.23-08-2022 2/2
session. Their names have been figured in the confessional statement of co-accused.
On perusal of paragraph No. 3 of the bail petition it appears that the petitioners have strong criminal antecedent of similar nature of the case. As such, they do not deserve the privilege for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
SONALI/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners having strong criminal antecedents deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail under the CrPC?
What steps are to be taken to remove defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter in the bail petition?
What is the consideration for granting anticipatory bail when the petitioners have prior criminal records of similar nature?
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Jago Yadav
Guddu Yadav
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
