Rajo Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39466 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -440 Year- 2009 Thana -LAKHISARAI District- LAKHISARAI ====================================================== Rajo Manjhi, Son of Lakhan Manjhi, resident of Village - Dharampur, P.S. - Chanan, District - Lakhisarai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Raj Kishore Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Lakhisarai (Chanan) P.S. Case No. 440 of 2009 for the offences instituted under Section 489(B) of the IPC.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused/petitioner and his maternal uncle Sarpanch Manjhi arrived at the shop of the informant and demanded change rupees against one currency note of Rs. 500/-. The informant tok the currency note of one Rs. 500/- from the co-accused Sarpanch Manjhi and he found the aforesaid currency note was fake. It is also alleged that in the presence of customers and shopkeepers a search was made and two currency notes of Rs. 500/- was also recovered from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39466 of 2015 (2) dt.28-09-2015 2/2 pocket of the co-accused Sarpanch Manjhi. The accused/petitioner fled away from there. Co-accused Sarpanch Manjhi disclosed the fact that the aforesaid notes were given by one Dilip Paswan. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the present case relates to the counterfeit note. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered also from possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is simply a labourer.

On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in connection with Lakhisarai (Chanan) P.S. Case No. 440/2009, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai. Anyhow, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order the same shall be considered on its own merit without prejudiced by this order.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T