Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9396/2024rejected

Lalbabu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-20Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9396 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2023 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Lalbabu Kumar Son of Late Jagbir Prasad @ Jagwir Prasad Resident of village - Semra Urf Srikanth, Harpur Chowk, Police Station - Piar, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Piar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 25.05.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 22/23 (1) of P.C. & P.N.D.T. Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was running the illegal Ultrasoud Centers and Nursing Homes.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9396 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/2 petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the owner of the Baby Ultrasound Centre is of one Smt. Shashi Kala Devi and the resident of the petitioner is behind the Centre so he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that it has come during investigation that the petitioner is the Manager of the Centre in question and he has committed wrong in the Centre.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Piar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2023 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Muzaffarpur.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T