Ratneshwar Kumar Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35324 of 2020 Arising Out of Case No.-317 Year-2018 ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

RATNESHWAR KUMAR TIWARY Son of Sri Keshri Prasad Tiwary Resident of Village- Manoharpur, P.O.- Mednipur, P.S.- Dinara, DistrictRohtas. 2.

Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary Son of Late Bikramaditya Tiwary Resident of VillageManoharpur, P.O.- Mednipur, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas. 3.

Keshri Prasad Tiwary Son of Late Bikramaditya Tiwary Resident of VillageManoharpur, P.O.- Mednipur, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas. 4.

Bidya Sagar Tiwary Son of Late Sigashan Tiwary Resident of VillageManoharpur, P.O.- Mednipur, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. advocate Mr. Rajani Kant Singh For the State :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Complainant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint case No. 317/2018 registered under Section 406, 420, 465, 120B of the IPC.

The complainant in sum and substance alleged that the petitioners took money for providing job in Group- D of Railway Department and the complainant paid Rs. 2,60,000/-. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to institution of the present case Ratneshwar Tiwary, petitioner No.1, filed Complaint Case No. 05/2018 on 04.01.2018 with same and similar allegation against nine accused persons. It is further submitted that on the face of it, it appears that complainant himself is indulged in illegal activities

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35324 of 2020(2) dt.19-03-2021 2/2 and he is trying to obtain job in Indian Railway after paying bribe.

The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned APP opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It appears that the petitioners and the complainant are having close relative or acquainted with each other from before. The complainant and the petitioners filed complaint case against each other with same and similar allegation of taking money for providing job in the Railway.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest/ surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order are directed to be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Bikramganj, Rohtas in connection with Complaint case No. 317/2018, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T