Patna High CourtCR. MISC./44013/2016rejected

Lal Babu Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-12-19Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44013 of 2016 (3) dt.19-12-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44013 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1476 Year- 2015 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Lal Babu Rai Son of Sri Jagdish Rai Resident of Village-Chak Hasan, P.S.-Ahiyapur, District-Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shiv Chandra Sah son of Shree Suraj Deo Sah Resident of VillageBasouli Nankar, P.S.-Bochha, District-Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1476 of 2015 registered under Sections417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken Rs. 4 lacs in cash from the complainant showing power of attorney for a land belonging to co-accused Shivjee Prasad Sah and when the complainant went to construct boundary wall on the land in question, he was restrained by the co-accused and further that despite repeated request, the petitioner has not returned the money to the complainant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44013 of 2016 (3) dt.19-12-2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not take any money from the complainant. It is further submitted that petitioner does not have any land of himself and is also not into any land brokerage business. Considering the allegations attributed against petitioner and the fact that petitioner has criminal history, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. His prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T