Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9166/2022bail rejected

Mithilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-08Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9166 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2014 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== MITHILESH KUMAR Son of Mohan Mahto Resident of Village - Mirjapur , Barbighi, P.O.- Hussiana, P.S.- Ballia, Distt.- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Man Bansh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-09-2022 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 Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 299 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 489 (B) and 489 (C) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fake currency was not recovered from his possession rather it was recovered form possession of Chandra Kishore Kumar and in his confessional statement the name of the petitioner has figured. On the other hand, the learned Addl.P.P. Sri. J.N. Thakur has opposed the prayer for bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9166 of 2022(2) dt.08-09-2022 2/2 It appears that anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was rejected by the court below in the year 2015 and he filed second anticipatory bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge Patna in the year 2020 after five years of rejection of the first anticipatory bail petition. It appears that due to non-appearance of the petitioner the investigation/trial has hampered for a long duration. As such, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail.

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