Pramod Pandey @ Pramod Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23260 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2013 Thana- BHANGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan ====================================================== Pramod Pandey @ Pramod Kumar Pandey S/o Nagendra Pandey R/o villageKapiyan Nizamat, P.S.- Maharajganj, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Siwan, Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Ms. Kumari Anupam, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For BSFC :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Utkarsh Utpal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Bhagwanpur Hat P.S. Case No.83 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and as per the prosecution case, all the allegations are alleged against Sri Janardan Singh, Chairman of Mundipur PACS. It is further submitted that the petitioner had only to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23260 of 2021(11) dt.13-07-2022 2/2 transport the milled rice. When the petitioner had gone to Mundipur PACS Rice Mill on 22.04.2013, 23.04.2013 and 29.04.2013 with truck, Janardan Singh had failed to load rice. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. The learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of BSFC opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and the petitioner has not enclosed any document in order to show that the petitioner had sent truck for lifting the milled rice. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T