Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39381/2019dismissed

Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-08-21Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39381 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-452 Year-2018 Thana- KOTWALI DistrictPatna ====================================================== MUKESH KUMAR, male, aged about 36 years, Son of Late Chandra Mohan Mahto Resident of Village - Ward no. - 2, Chhoti Baliya Patel Chowk, P.S. - Baliya, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 21-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 452 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to rivalry between him and co-accused Manju Kumari, both of whom are Panchayat Teachers. It is submitted that except confessional statement of aforesaid co-accused Manju Kumari, there is no objective material to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39381 of 2019(4) dt.21-08-2019 2/2

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the petition, submitting on the basis of paragraph-44 of the case diary obtaining statement of co-accused Manju Kumari to the effect that she had paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner and Deepak Kumar to procure a job as Panchayat Teacher. The role of the petitioner was that he had helped to obtain forged certificate of BETET to enable co-accused Manju Kumari to get the job.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

6. If the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail before the learned Court below the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any observation in the present order.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T