Dina Prasad @ Dinanath Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38006 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-773 Year-2022 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== Dina Prasad @ Dinanath Prasad Yadav Sons Of Sitaram Prasad Yadav Resident Of Village Bishambharpur Dharam Parsa P S Manjhagarh District Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Dhiraj Nath Tiwary Son Of Baliram Nath Tiwary Resident Of Village And Post- Cheetakhal, Ps- Dukhani, District- Siwan ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 773 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 379, 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj.

3. The informant alleged that 28 tons of paddy was loaded on the truck of the petitioner and the same has been misappropriated by the petitioner in connivance with his driver.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38006 of 2023(4) dt.10-10-2023 2/2 specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the occurrence took place on 22.08.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 21.09.2022 i.e. after delay of one month and there is no explanation regarding the delay, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case and there is ample evidence against the petitioner in the case diary. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T