Monu @ Monu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29959 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2019 Thana- PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Monu @ Monu Kumar Son of Nitya Nand Sharma Resident of Village - Bandih, P.S.- Patory, District- Samastipur 2.

Monu Ka Brother @ Sonu Kumar Son of Nitya Nand Sharma Resident of Village - Bandih, P.S.- Patory, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Suneil Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 12 of 2019, disclosing offence under Sections 341, 385, 379, 427, 504, 506, 384, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Report lodged by the informant disclosed that he is running a poultry farm at gram Bandih in the district Samastipur and the accused persons including the petitioner has taken away his CCTV camera alongwith the wire, he informed about the same to the A.S.I. The accused persons including petitioner is also there and surrounded him any how the A.S.I. has intervened on which the accused persons demanded Rs. 5 lacs otherwise they will destroy the farm.

Thereafter, the information was given to the S.P. who

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29959 of 2019(3) dt.19-07-2019 2/2 provide police protection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation is false and concocted, As a matter of facts the amount which was not paid by the informant and to It is further stated that he has a criminal history and four other cases had lodged against him, rather he is an accused one more case that have lodged at the instance of the informant. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 who has opposed the prayer for bail stated that there is allegation against the petitioners of threatening and stopping him not come in front of the police officials and as such the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court below and make prayer for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned court below on its own merits.

With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Rahul/- U T