Ramswaroop Prasad @ Mani Gupta @ Manilal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33111 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2022 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== RAMSWAROOP PRASAD @ MANI GUPTA @ MANILAL PRASAD S/o of Late Kedar Sah Resident of Village- Nanosati, P.S.- Majhaulia, DistrictWest Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No.282/2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 420, 413, 414, 34 of the IPC.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that he purchased a Bolero from petitioner by paying Rs.3.20 Lakhs and the said vehicle was registered in the name of one Jagdish Prasad Yadav. Informant filed challan for transferring the vehicle in his name but it came to his knowledge that the said Bolero was registered in the name of some other person. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33111 of 2023(3) dt.21-08-2023 2/2 has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner has not received any money from the informant for selling the Bolero Vehicle and the informant has not produced any document in this regard. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is ample evidence against the petitioner and other co-accused persons in the case diary and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of cheating the informant.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T