Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14393/2022bail granted

Manbodh Prasad @ Manbodh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2022-06-23Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14393 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2021 Thana- SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSiwan ====================================================== MANBODH PRASAD @ MANBODH MANJHI Son of Late Devnagar Manjhi Resident of Village- Purb Khalwa, P.O. Khalwa, P.S.- Nautan, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Munna Manjhi S/o Late Balchan Manjhi Resident of Village- Purb Khalwa, P.O. Khalwa, P.S.- Nautan, District- Siwan.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subhash Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 419, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the complainant Munna Manjhi in the complaint alleges that his father Balchand Manjhi was working on the post of Chowkidar in Nautan Thana in Halka No. 6 who died in the year 1995, it is further alleged that after death of his father he was working on the post of

2/4 Chowkidar for the last 20 years in the Nautan Thana on the instruction of S.H.O. of Nautan P.S. but the accused persons took his signature on the blank paper on the assurance of his permanent service. It is further alleged that petitioner used the blank signed paper for his own service on the post of Chowkidar in Halka No. 6 and when the complainant came to know that petitioner has played fraud with him and has got the service of Chowkidar, a panchayati was held and then it came to light that petitioner was working in sugar factory at Uttar Pradesh and suppressing this fact he was also working at the post of Chowkidar of Nautan Thana. It is further alleged that petitioner's date of birth is 07.02.1952 and his date of retirement is 06.02.2012, further a complaint was made to the S.H.O., Nautan P.S. and to the I.G.

of Police but no action was taken, it is further alleged that the petitioner after his retirement from sugar industry, Uttar Pradesh entered into an agreement with the complainant that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be given to him per month from 13.04.2016 but not a single penny was paid to him, it is next alleged that when the complainant demanded his arrears of money from the petitioner, the petitioner refused to give him and threatened to kill.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

3/4 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, complainant in the complaint alleges that his father died in the year 1995 and thereafter fraudulently the petitioner obtained appointment as Chowkidar in his place, learned counsel submits that when the petitioner is working from 1986 then how come he could have taken appointment based on fraud in 1995 as the appointment letter at Annexure-3 clearly records that the appointment was made on 13.05.1986. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner retired in the year 2021 and thereafter the present complaint came to be instituted that in itself demonstrates that complainant for some ulterior reason has instituted the present complaint after an inordinate delay without any plausible explanation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant has abused the process of Court by instituting a false complaint case which gets manifested from the fact that the complainant himself alleges that his father died in 1995 when the petitioner is working from 1986, it is next submitted that a proper inquiry into the conduct of the complainant is required by the police that as to why such frivolous complaint came to be instituted and that too only with a view to harass the petitioner in order to extort.

4/4 Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but are not able to meet the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment was made in 1986 and the petitioner retired in 2021 and no case in between said period was ever filed.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prima-facie since it appears to the Court that the complaint is frivolous, the petitioner abovenamed, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 144 of 2021, Trial No. 2709 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T