Arun Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38168 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -635 Year- 2014 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Arun Kumar Son of: Surendra Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Kotha Toli (Near Babu Ka Fatak) P.S. Sasaram Town, District Rothas at Sasaram. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shakuntla Kumari @ Sakuntala Kuer, Wife of late Ram Ekbal Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Barah, Pathar, PS Dehari, District Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dudh Nath Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.
16-09-2016 Heard Sri Dudh Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2, who has voluntarily appeared. The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case No. 635 of 2014 filed for offence under Sections 334, 457, 468, 406, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to Annexure - 2 & 3 to the petition, submits that the present complaint was got filed by one Mira Kumari, who is close relative
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38168 of 2016 (2) dt.16-09-2016 2/3 of the complainant of the present case. There was dispute that Mira Kumari, who was at the relevant time, posted in the concerned police station and as such, despite the fact that Mira Kumari had committed fraud with the father of the petitioner, no complaint was entertained in the police station. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, vide Annexure - 2 to the present petition, even then, no action was taken. Then, a complaint was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by father of the petitioner. He submits that the present case has falsely been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner is a L.I.C. agent and the case has been concocted that despite the fact that petitioner had received premium amount for depositing the same in the L.I.C. office, he had not deposited the same nor handed over any receipt. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let the petitioner namely Arun
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38168 of 2016 (2) dt.16-09-2016 3/3 Kumar be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate - 10, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with Complaint Case No. 635 of 2014, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T