Pavan Kumar @ Pawan Sharma v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24986 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1092 Year- 2010 Thana -JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE DistrictJEHANABAD ====================================================== Pavan Kumar @ Pawan Sharma S/o Sri Bhola Sharma Resident of villageSabdalpur, P .S- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Naresh Prasad Son of Late Deo Charan Singh Resident of villageNeeshara Chak, P.O and P.S Ghosi, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.Eheteshamuddin (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 05-01-2015 Previous order dated 4.12.2014 has already been complied by filing the Photostat copy of the certified copy of entire order sheet of Complaint Case No.1092 of 2010. No one is present on behalf of the O.P.No.2 though Vakalatnama on behalf of the O.P.No.2 has been filed which is on the record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1092 of 2010 in which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24986 of 2014 (5) dt.05-01-2015 2/3 323, 504, 406, 420, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the complainant had purchased a power tiller from the firm of one Kaushalendra Kumar and thereafter Kaushalendra Kumar along with other accused persons went at the house of the complainant and took away the power tiller on the ground to provide subsidy and, accordingly, the complainant handed over the power tiller to the accused persons and in such way accused persons cheated the complainant and misappropriated the power tiller.

Submission at bar is that the petitioner is one of the staffs of the said firm which is being run by Kaushalendra Kumar and one co- accused Ranjan Kumar had been allowed regular bail by learned District & Sessions Judge vide B.P.No.517 of 2013 and the petitioner apprehending his arrest has come before this Court. No offence is made out against the petitioner and, as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned A.P.P. opposes.

Allegedly, the petitioner is one of the staffs in the said firm and, as such, the petitioner in case of his arrest or surrender before the court below within one month shall be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24986 of 2014 (5) dt.05-01-2015 3/3 Magistrate 1st Class, Jehanabad, in Complaint Case No.1092 of 2010. with condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T