← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25450/2019rejected

Niraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-04-24Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25450 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2018 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai ====================================================== NIRAJ KUMAR aged about 23 years, Male, Son of Samal Pandit @ Shyamal Pandit Resident of Village - Singhpur, P.S.- Nayagaon, Distt - Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Uco Bank through its Branch Manger, Khorampur Branch, P.S.- Matihani, District- Begusarai Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No. 175 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. No one has complained against this petitioner regarding cheating in the name of installation of tower. Petitioner is a poor person having no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25450 of 2019(2) dt.24-04-2019 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 specific allegation against him of cheating in the name of installation of tower. In the supervision note, the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been found to be true. 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 prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T