Pappu Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31600 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2012 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== PAPPU KUMAR @ JITENDRA KUMAR, Son of Birendra Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla- West Gandhi Maidan, Jehanabad, Police station - Jehanabad and District - Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

RAMPRATAP SHARMA, Son of Late Ram Ratan Sharma Resident of Mohalla- Vivekanand Colony, Deodharpur, Police Station - Tekari and District - Gaya.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, Adv.

For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2022 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The State is represented by Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, the learned APP.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31600 of 2021(3) dt.29-04-2022 2/3 The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 99 of 2012 in which, cognizance has been taken against him for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that from the bare reading of the complaint, it would appear that there is some dispute between the company which was requested to erect a telephony tower and the opposite party No. 2.

The petitioner is only an employee of the company.

It has further been submitted that from paragraph 5 of the complaint petition, it would appear that all the wherewithals for erecting the tower had been brought to the house of opposite party No. 2, but for what reason such an accusation has been made in complaint remains unknown.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31600 of 2021(3) dt.29-04-2022 3/3 19.01.2022 is, hereby, confirmed. He shall remain on the same bail-bonds.

The application stands allowed and disposed off accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- U T