Kallu Dubey @ Vinay Dubey v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 395
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. amit/- U T (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma ORAL ORDER 2 22-02-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Siswan P.S. Case No.250/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Siwan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and has been falsely implicated in the instant case based on confessional statement of co-accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that on 05.10.2021 while he along with Shivjee Prasad were returning home when they were intercepted by two accused Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4966 of 2024(2) dt.22-02-2024 persons on a motorcycle and were asked to stop and when they did not stop they fired causing injury on the thigh, hence they fell. Thereafter the accused took Rs.15,000/- and documents of the motorcycle at pistol point, in the meantime, four more accused came on two motorcycles armed with firearms and they took away the motorcycle and money towards Chainpur. It is submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and confession is a weak evidence.
Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases of similar nature and the allegation is of firing against the informant and he also received injury. It is next submitted that the investigation is still going on.
Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. amit/- U T (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.