Saroj Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37374 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-612 Year-2015 Thana- KHAZANIHAT District- Purnia ====================================================== Saroj Chauhan, son of Late Jagat Kishore Chauhan, resident of VillageBarbanna, P.S. K.Hat, (Marange), District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with K. Hat (Maranga) P.S. Case No.612 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation has been made against the petitioner that he had moved before the Court below for anticipatory bail bearing No.1629 of 2014 filed by Dropadi Devi and others including petitioner and the affidavit was sworn in the said anticipatory bail by one Chandra Shekhar Chauhan. Thereafter, another anticipatory bail application vide A.B.P. No. 438 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner without disclosing of filing of earlier anticipatory bail before the Court below. When the office

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37374 of 2018(2) dt.05-07-2018 2/2 has pointed out the same, then plea was taken that it was filed by the enemy of the petitioner, which the Court below has found to be a suppression of fact and that led to lodging of F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case he was granted anticipatory bail by the Court below itself and after release from the jail custody on 03.07.2016 another case has been lodged and submits that the petitioner has not committed any forgery. However, on perusal of the order passed by the Court below it appears that it is a fraudulent act of the petitioner.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below within four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the Court below will consider the same and pass appropriate order without being influenced by the order of this Court. (Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U T