Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10391/2020rejected

Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-10-28Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10391 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2011 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== SANDEEP KUMAR Son of Raj Kumar Chaudhary Resident of VillageAropur, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nityanand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 254 of 2011 registered under Sections 406/420/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of C.J.M., West Champaran, Bettiah.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 7399 of 2013 on 02.07.2013 on merit. Further, he submits that petitioner is ready to pay the alleged amount.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that there is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10391 of 2020(5) dt.28-10-2021 2/2 no fresh ground in the present case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Earlier, prayer of the petitioner was rejected by a Bench of this Court on 02.07.2013 vide Cr. Misc. No. 7399 of 2013 with observation that if petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail before the court below within a month from today, the learned court below shall consider the regular bail application of the petitioner on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Further, he submits that the petitioner did not surrender before the court below. Thereafter, the petitioner after lapse 8 years again approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T