Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15555/2019rejected

Ratnesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-05-20Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15555 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2018 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== RATNESH KUMAR Son of Late Satrughan Singh, R/O House NO. 222, Modi Factory, Budh Nagar, Nasriganj, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ghanshyam Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 320 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Madhya Nished and Excise Act, 2016 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of registered owner of the vehicle but the petitioner had already sold his vehicle to one Rupesh Jha which is evident

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15555 of 2019(3) dt.20-05-2019 2/2 from agreement for sale at Annexure-2. The petitioner has now no concern with the alleged vehicle and the recovery. Hence, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle on which total 986.400 liters IMFL has been recovered. Moreover, the agreement for sale on which the petitioner was relying is not a registered document, which is evident from Annexure2.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T