Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15472/2021bail rejected

Ram Sagar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-17Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15472 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2020 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== RAM SAGAR SAH S/O SATYANARAYAN SAH R/O VILLAGE-WARD NO. 12, BAURAHA, P.S. KARJAIN, DISTRICT SUPAUL. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant of this case is Central Superintendent of Radheyshyam Teachers' Training College, Supaul. The examination of Matriculation was going on, meanwhile, Block Development Officer, Arvind Kumar, and Cooperative

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15472 of 2021(2) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 Development Officer, Shailendra Kumar, caught a participant who disclosed his name as Ram Sagar Sah, which is the name of the present petitioner. On intensive interrogation he disclosed that he is appearing in the examination in the place of the present petitioner who is his maternal brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 419 and 420 are not applicable as there is specific enactment to check such type of offences.

The learned court below has mentioned in the impugned order that such offences are rampant feature in the District. As such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner 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