Ishtdeo Mahadeo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31047 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1258 Year-2023 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ishtdeo Mahadeo son of late DEO NARAYAN PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-Ekdara,P.S.- Boriya ,P.S.-Vibhutipur,DIST- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Superintendent Of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government Of Bihar,Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv Mr.Vardaan Mangalam, Adv Ms. Ritika Rani, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Fahimuddin, APP Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 1258 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A), 12 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

The learned APP submits that the offence for which the instant FIR has been instituted, carries punishment of seven years and less, the said submission of the learned APP is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31047 of 2024(2) dt.02-08-2024 2/2 petitioner.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation in the case against the petitioner is still continuing and he has been granted the benefit of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that when the instant anticipatory bail application was filed at that time the benefit of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was not given to the petitioner as such the anticipatory bail application was filed.

5.

Learned APP thus submits that petitioner does have any apprehension of arrest as he has been given the benefit of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T