Naresh Nanubhai Dayabhai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15999 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-674 Year-2011 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna ====================================================== NARESH NANUBHAI DAYABHAI Son of Nanubhai Dayabhai, Residing at Ashirwad, B-309, Sector-6, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Manoj Kumar Rai Superintendent of Regional Passport Office, Maurya Lok Patna, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 674 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner happens to be an employee of Regional Passport Office, Patna and he has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner has nothing to the with alleged missing passport. Neither the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15999 of 2019(4) dt.21-06-2019 2/2 petitioner has issued any illegal passport to anyone nor he is involved in any illegal activities. The petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for Union on India has opposed the prayer for bail of this petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is involved in issuing illegal passport and several cases have also been lodged against the petitioner for his illegal act for which the petitioner has been suspended from his service.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U