Rajneesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12031 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2019 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== RAJNEESH KUMAR Son of Sri Ram Niwas Singh @ Ram Niwas Singh Resident of Village - Akbarpur, P.S.- Paliganj, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Paliganj P.S. Case no. 53 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 387, 447, 341, 323, 385, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, it is stated that at the time of commencement of contract work allotted to the informant, accused Rajnish Kumar, petitioner herein came to the place of work and started to demand rangdari. It is stated that he along with other persons came and started to abuse and threatened that the informant should stop his work or else he would be shot dead. It is stated that he was carrying a pistol and had made a demand of Rs. 2 lacs It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation as levelled in the FIR are false and concocted. The petitioner is a 24 year old young person and the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12031 of 2020(6) dt.09-12-2020 2/2 was carrying out construction work much below the standard, which was protested to by the villagers including the petitioner herein and which has led to the informant lodging a false case against the petitioner. The petitioner is an accused in one another case wherein he has been granted bail. It is further submitted that from the FIR it would transpire that the informant was not present at the place of work when the alleged demand was made.

The application for bail has been opposed by learned APP for the State.

Case diary called for in the case has been received. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials that has come during course of investigation it transpires that the witnesses in course of investigation have supported the allegations made by the informant in the FIR. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the same is rejected. (Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U