Rabindra Rai @ Ravindra Ray v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20012 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2017 Thana- GWALPARA District- Madhepura ====================================================== RABINDRA RAI @ RAVINDRA RAY Son of Subhash Rai Proprietor Govind Rice Mill, Karauti, Resident of Village - Karauti, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District - Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Manoj Kumar Son of Shri Harinandan Mehta Resident of Village - Shyam, P.S.- Gwalpara, District - Madhepura, the Chairman, Pirnagar Panchayat PACS, P.S.- Gwalpara, District - Madhepura ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2019 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gwalpara P.S.Case No. 19 of 2017 registered under Sections 120, 406, 411, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner, as per FIR, is that complainant is PACS Chairman of Pirnagar Panchayat and petitioner, being miller of rice mill, was given 2537.31 quintals paddy by the complainant after purchasing the same from the farmers against which petitioner had to supply the rice to the complainant, however, petitioner supplied only 701 quintals rice and remaining 999 quintals rice was not supplied to PACS by the petitioner.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20012 of 2019(4) dt.25-07-2019 2/2 petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the PACS Chairman in order to create defence in his favour for the irregularity committed by the informant.

On the other hand, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, submits that petitioner is in habit of committing this kind of offence inasmuch as 05 cases are lodged against the petitioner by different PACS Chairman out of which bail applications in three cases have been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that huge qanitity of rice has not been given by the petitioner to the PACS in lieu of paddy received by the petitioner, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as such the same is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T