Manoj Prasad @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20266 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -230 Year- 2014 Thana -BASANTPUR District- SIWAN ====================================================== Manoj Prasad @ Manoj Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Prasad R/o village Madhopur, P.S. Basantpur, District Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Rai 1 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2015 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Kumar Rai, learned A.P.P. The petitioner, who apprehends his arrest in connection with Basantpur P.S. Case No. 230 of 2014 registered for the offence under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R. petitioner has also been arrayed as an accused, but fact remains that there is no specific allegation against him. Only, general and omnibus allegation has been made. He further submits that petitioner is a Bank employee and F.I.R. was lodged after two days of the occurrence. He further submits that prior to the present F.I.R., two days earlier to the alleged occurrence in the present

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20266 of 2015 (3) dt.01-07-2015 2/2 case, a dispute arose between both the parties, and as such, he submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. Fact remains that there is allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner for offence under Section 302 and other allied Section of I.P.C., the petitioner is making a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T