Mantu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51996 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2021 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar ====================================================== MANTU KUMAR SON OF RAJENDRA MANDAL Resident of Village - Sadhua, Sadhua, P.S.- Rangra (O.P.) Rangra Chowk, Distt.- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dwij Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 27-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 420, 489A, 489B, 489C and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that on receiving information, the informant reached the place of occurrence. It is further stated that the petitioner came on a motorcycle and handed over a packet to the accused standing near the place of occurrence. On seeing the polythene packet and on search it transpired that the same contained fake notes worth Rs. 28,600/- It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51996 of 2021(4) dt.27-04-2022 2/2 in the case. No such occurrence as alleged has taken place. The petitioner is in custody since 2.6.2021 and has no criminal antecedent. Investigation in the case has concluded. Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation in the FIR wherein it has been stated that the petitioner came with the fake currency notes and handed it over to the co-accused standing near the place of occurrence and which was seized from the other co-accused, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

In view of the petitioner not having any criminal antecedent, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U