Ravindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6192 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-595 Year-2021 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== RAVINDRA YADAV SON OF KADAM LAL YADAV R/O VILLAGESUKHASAN, WARD NO.-02, P.S.- KISHANPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleges that on recommendation of petitioner, he engaged truck of Sohan Kumar Yadav and loaded 520 bags of maize for transportation but the same was not delivered at the place of the informant, it is next alleged that mobile phones of khalashi and driver of the truck were switched off and further alleges that the truck of the petitioner is in his possession.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6192 of 2022(2) dt.22-08-2022 2/3 petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and as far as petitioner is concerned, against him it is alleged that it was on his recommendation that the informant had loaded the bags of maize in the truck of Sohan Kumar which was not delivered, it is next submitted that the truck of the petitioner is in possession of the informant which is of more value than that of maize. Learned counsel submits that if maize did not reach the place where it was to be delivered then the informant is trying to make out a case that the maize was siphoned off by the accused persons but then even the informant has committed an illegality by forcefully keeping the truck of petitioner in his possession. Learned counsel at the cost of repetition submits that as far as petitioner is concerned, he is neither the owner nor the driver or khalashi of the truck rather he only introduced informant with Sohan Kumar for transportation of maize and came to be implicated because maize was not delivered at the place where it was to be delivered.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6192 of 2022(2) dt.22-08-2022 3/3 within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 595 of 2021 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T