Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Md. Akhatar @ Md. Akhtar @ Mounti vs The State Of Bihar on 20 July, 2017

Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh

Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Criminal Miscellaneous No.24334 of 2017
                      Arising Out of PS.Case No. -344 Year- 2016 Thana -BARAUNI District- BEGUSARAI
                 ======================================================
                 1. MD. AKHATAR @ MD. AKHTAR @ MOUNTI Son of Md. Nizam,
                 Resident of Village- Dariyapur, P.S.- Hathidah, District- Patna.

                                                                                .... ....   Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 1. The State of Bihar

                                                               .... .... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :   Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar
                 For the Opposite Party/s   : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar -2
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
                 SHARAN SINGH
                 ORAL ORDER

3   20-07-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for anticipatory bail arises out of Barauni P.S. Case N0. 344 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 379,427 of the Indian Penal Code.

The occurrence relates of theft of the entire ATM machine by the unknown criminals after uprooting the same. The petitioner's complicity has surfaced in course of the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he resides in Delhi and he has been wrongly implicated in the present case.

Be that as it may, considering the seriousness of the offence having grave consequences, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 2 This application is rejected.

The petitioner is directed is surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If he does so, his application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by rejection of the present application for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/-

U