Niranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10586 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-927 Year-2019 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== NIRANJAN KUMAR Son of Dasai Ram Resident of Village - Daranagar, P.S.- Nouhatta (Rohtas), District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Shruti Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, through Video Conferencing.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Kotwali (Tilka Manjhi) Police Station Case No. 927 of 2019, disclosing offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The allegation against the petitioner, as per the First Information Report lodged by Mithilesh Kumar, S.I. of Police -cum- Station House Officer, Tilka Manjhi Police Station, is that on 05.10.2019, a video became viral on social media about one policeman taking bribe from the vehicle owner. It has further been alleged that on the basis of orders of the senior police

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10586 of 2020(2) dt.25-06-2020 2/2 official, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Bhagalpur, who submitted his report, in which it has been found that Constable 698 Niranjan Kumar (petitioner) was accepting bribe from the vehicle owner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of a video. She further submits that the authenticity of the video was not verified and there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence.

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the Investigating Officer, in his report, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was seen in the video accepting bribe from the vehicle owner and the C.D. of the video has been made part of the case diary, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √