Rajesh Lal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47972 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2016 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== RAJESH LAL S/o VINOD PRASAD R/o VILLAGE-DARIYAPUR, P.SNAGARNAUSA, DISTRICT-NALANDA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anang Mohan Sinha For the State :

Mr.Umanath Mishra For Union of India :

Mr.K.N.Singh, Sr.Adv. (ASG) Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh (ED) Mr.Alok Ranjan JC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner alongwith others misappropriated 3608.45 quintals of rice, which were to be deposited in the godown of Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation (for short "BSFCSC"), and thus caused loss of Rs. 1,05,29,457/- (One crore five lacs twenty nine thousand four hundred fifty seven).

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and in spite of several

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47972 of 2021(5) dt.28-07-2022 2/2 requests to the concerned department for taking back the rice, the concerned department did not take back the rice, as a result of which, said rice could not be shifted to the godown of BSFCSC. It is further submitted that regarding same occurrence, police has also instituted a case, vide Rai Parsu Rai P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015, in which, petitioner has already been granted bail by the learned court below, vide A.B.P. No. 471 of 2015. However, learned counsel for opposite party / E.D. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against this petitioner that he caused loss to the tune of of Rs. 1,05,29,457/- to the government. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and same is, accordingly, rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T