Dhanjeet Kumar Yadav @ Dhanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32827 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1278 Year-2018 Thana- SAHARSA District- Saharsa ====================================================== 1.

DHANJEET KUMAR YADAV @ DHANJEET KUMAR Son of Bharat Ray Resident of Village- Kolhrampur, P.O.- Panchrukhia, P.S.- Barahara, District- Bhojpur (Ara).

2.

Jitesh Kumar So of Sushil Saw Resident of Dakshinvari Patti Babura, P.O.- Babura, P.S.- Barhara, District- Bhojpur (Ara). 3.

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Mantu @ Mantu Yadav Son of Bidyanand Yadav Resident of Village- Lahara Singheshwar Asthan, P.O.- Bhawanipur, P.S.- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-08-2019 Petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 1278 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 343, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation as per FIR is that informant was called by one Jitendra Kumar Chourasiya and he introduced the informant with accused persons, including the petitioners. It is alleged that they took his signature on a letter head and also received Rs.20,000/- and two mobile phones and confined him there. Further it is alleged that on 4.12.2018 the informant was taken by Jitendra Kumar Chourasiya and one Dhanjeet Kumar Yadav

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32827 of 2019(4) dt.13-08-2019 2/2 on a motorcycle and during vehicle checking they after throwing mobile phone of the informant and fled away and informant anyhow came to police and narrated about the entire occurrence.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are employees of Glaze Trading Indian Private Ltd. and they have falsely been implicated in this case and they are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed on them. Heard learned APP, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail after drawing my attention towards the statement of police officer, who has intercepted the vehicle and recovered the informant.

In view of above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. They may surrender and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merit.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T