Krishna Bind v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17922 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-391 Year-2017 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Krishna Bind Son Of Late Bharat Bind R/O Village- Telipokhar, P.S.- Sheosagar, District- Rohtas At Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sudarshan Chaudhary Son Of Sitaram Chaudhary R/O Village- Ghorghat, P.S.- Sheosagar, District- Rohtas At Sasaram ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ram Nibash Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Asha Kumari Mr. Rajani Kant Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the opposite party no. 2.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 391 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. As a matter of fact, petitioner has not taken any money nor has signed any paper regarding the recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the document produced is false and fabricated.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17922 of 2021(5) dt.28-01-2022 2/2 by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused and there is direct allegation against him of taking Rs. 5,00,000/- which is supported by the document containing signature of the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T