Rajnish Kumar @ Rajnish Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48538 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-718 Year-2019 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== RAJNISH KUMAR @ RAJNISH KUMAR RANJAN S/o- LATE RAM DAYAL SINGH Proprietor of Sainik Engineering Works, resident of villagebaban Bigha, Kanhauli, Khadi Bhandar Road, Ramana, Mithanpura, P.S.- Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

AJAY KUMAR SINGH S/o- RADHE KRISHNA SINGH Resident of Mohalla- Andar Kila SirhiGhat Road, Hajipur, P.S.- Town, District- Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Malay Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-04-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 718 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was no agreement between the petitioner and the complainant for purchase of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48538 of 2021(7) dt.28-04-2022 2/2 Transit Machine.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the complaint petition and there is direct allegation of against him. Moreover, petitioner had given cheque also which got dishonoured. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

mcv/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T