Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38292 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-909 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SURENDRA PRASAD @ SURENDRA RAM R/O VILLAGE- THANUA , P.S.- SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT- ROHTAS ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar BIHAR 2.

DR. DINESH SHARMA SON OF LATE VISHWANATH TRIPATHY RESIDENT OF DHANVANTRI HOSPITAL, RAJ COLONY, G.T.ROAD, SASARAM, P.S.- SASARAM (T), DISTRICT- ROHTAS ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For the informant : Mr.Fulman Singh, Adv. Mr.Rabindra Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 07-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 909 of 2018 instituted under Sections 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution story, the complainant who is a Doctor, complained that he and his wife is running a Nursing Home where this petitioner along with his associates came and on the point of pistol demanded extortion. Having failed to lodge the FIR, the complaint was lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38292 of 2022(3) dt.07-02-2023 2/2 running a Gym on one of the floor of the Doctor's Nursing Home and as it failed to pay the rent, the complainant broke open the lock and took out the articles and when he demanded, the present complainant.

Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand has taken this Court to the observation of learned Sessions Judge to show that earlier he had preferred anticipatory bail petition and when the learned Sessions Judge opened his mind, he withdrew the same in 2020 and instead of surrendering two years later, he once again preferred anticipatory bail petition which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge which followed the present petition. He has further taken this Court to para-3 of the petition to show that petitioner is an accused in three different criminal cases under Section 392, 395 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking into account the kind of criminal antecedent that the petitioner has as also the fact that in a matter of 2018, he is belatedly approaching this court for anticipatory bail, no relief can be extended to him which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ajay Singh/- U T