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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14025 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2017 Thana- GWALPARA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Rabindra Rai @ Ravindra Ray Son of Subhash Rai Proprietor Govind Rice Mill, Karauti Resident of Village- Karauti, Police Station- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Bipin Kumar Singh Son of Kedar Singh Resident of Village- Shahpur, Police Station- Gowalpara, District Madhepura, The Chairman, Shahpur, Panchayat PACS, Police Station- 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 VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Gwalpara P.S. Case No. 20 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he has been supplied 1999.97 quintal of paddy and in lieu of that he returned only 325 quintal CMR and rest 1514.72 quintal of paddy remain with the petitioner valued of Rs. 21,35,755/- It further appears that the petitioner is accused in five similar type of cases. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has returned total paddy and false and concocted allegation has been levelled by the informant against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14025 of 2019(4) dt.01-05-2019 2/2 petitioner and further he is ready to abide by any condition imposed by him.

It further appears that a counter affidavit has been also filed by the learned counsel for the informant but the same has been filed without serving the copy of the same, as such, I am not going to look into the counter affidavit. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant, they have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stating that there is allegation of misappropriation of 1514.72 quintal of paddy.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, rather he should surrender and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered on its own merit.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amjad/SKSuman.

U T