Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28997/2016rejected

Mr. Suraj Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-09-27Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28997 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHUBANI TOWN District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Mr. Suraj Kumar S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Singh R/o Rajputana Tola, Ward No. 3, Jaynagar, Madhubani, Bihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar S/o Sri Ram Naresh Singh R/o Ram Chowk, Police Line, P.S. Nagar, Distt. - Madhubani.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dayanand Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Town P.S. Case No. 75/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that he had opened an agency of three wheeler in Jainagar. Suraj Kumar was looking after his agency. The informant handed over a three wheeler bearing Chasis no. MD2A26AZ6EWK-02418 and engine no. BAZWEK01509 for display. The informant closed the shop in the month of May, 2015 and when the informant went to demand the vehicle from the petitioner, he did not return the vehicle. The informant came to know that the petitioner sold his three wheeler and did not make

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28997 of 2016 (4) dt.27-09-2016 2/2 any payment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no chit of paper to show that the petitioner sold the vehicle to anyone. The aforesaid vehicle was purchased from the authorized agency namely, Bazaz Auto Company Ltd, but there is specific allegation that it was the petitioner who illegally sold the vehicle to someone from where the vehicle was recovered. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T