Tuntun Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21961 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2022 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== TUNTUN SINGH S/O LATE SOMARI SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGECHAKHUSSANI, P.S- MANSI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No.230/2022, G.R. No.1826/2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 409, 420/34 of the IPC. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is involved in purchasing 18 solar lights at higher rate than Government prescribed rates during the period 2009-2011. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. The occurrence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21961 of 2023(3) dt.03-07-2023 2/2 took place between 2009-11 but the F.I.R. was lodged in the year, 2022, which creates doubt about the prosecution case. He has one criminal antecedent.
Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that petitioner along with other co-accused purchased 18 solar lights @ Rs.44,000/- per solar light which was to be purchased at Rs.22,355/- per solar light. The aforesaid solar light was purchased at higher price not in accordance with the Government prescribed rate.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T