Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16659 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-446 Year-2023 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== MANOJ YADAV SON OF LATE JAGDISH YADAV R/O-WEST KARGAHIYA, WARD NO. 02, P.S.-BETTIAH NAGAR (KALIBAGH), DISTT.-WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Sujeet Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bettiah Nagar P.S. Case No.446 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 420/406 of the IPC.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the informant runs a medicine shop and petitioner was his servant, who used to collect money from retailers but it is alleged that he did not deposit the said money to the informant and committed fraud of Rs.15,00,000/- and left the shop.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16659 of 2024(3) dt.18-04-2024 2/2 He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. There is no evidence against the petitioner in the case-diary. No forgery has been committed by the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that informant is the owner of New Bajrang Drugs Agency, Bettiah and petitioner being the servant has forged Rs.15,00,000/- by not depositing the same to the informant.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T