Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20275 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -66 Year- 2015 Thana -KUDRA District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Akhilesh Kumar Singh son of Shivdhar Singh, resident of village Nevras, P.S. Kudra, District - Kaimur at Bhabhua.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

01-07-2015 Heard Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner, who is rice mill owner apprehending his arrest in Kudra P.S. Case No. 66 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that on perusal of the F.I.R. no offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. is made out. He further submits that in identical cases, anticipatory bail has been granted to other accused persons. On aforesaid ground, a prayer is being made for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20275 of 2015 (3) dt.01-07-2015 2/2 Fact remains that allegation in the present matter is to loss of Rs. 3,05,45,897.37 (rupees three crores five lacs forty five thousand eight hundred ninety seven & paise thirty seven). On perusal of the F.I.R., the Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. So far as the submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances, other accused persons have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail, this Court has already rejected similar matter of anticipatory bail petitions. I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T