Bhairav Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46100 of 2015 (3) dt.04-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46100 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -128 Year- 2014 Thana -DHAMDAHA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Bhairav Thakur S/o Naimati Thakur, Resident of Village - Mali, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akbar Ali(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 128 of 2014 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnea for the offences instituted under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that accused Giriya Devi by presenting herself as Mahadev promised to pay the double amount within a month got deposited money from public. Several accused persons used to visit the village and by giving allurement took money from public and all the accused persons are of same group and they have got deposit in 'Kharab' from public and were

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46100 of 2015 (3) dt.04-02-2016 engaged in illegal profession. When the informant party went to demand the money after one month, they were not given back their money and about 89 crores rupees in eight gunny bags and three bags were brought to the house of co-accused Ramchandra Singh, out of which some illegal fire arms were purchased. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and altogether Rs.89 crores is said to have been fraudulently collected by the informant and others. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the above named petitioner on anticipatory bail, the same is rejected.

(Sudhir Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T