Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16875/2019rejected

Ajad Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2019-06-21Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16875 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2018 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== AJAD SAH Son of Anik Lal Sah Resident of Village - Madho Nagar, Tirashi Tola, P.s.- Bhawanipur, Distt.- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Ranjan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Asha Devi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. case No. 257 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, informant had told this petitioner to transport his banana through his Tractor, which the petitioner had refused, and due to that reason he has lodged the present false case. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16875 of 2019(4) dt.21-06-2019 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is directed allegation against him of stealing the tractor of the informant. During investigation, witnesses have also stated to the effect that this petitioner has stolen the tractor of the informant. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T