Navnit Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.55022 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2014 Thana- ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR District- Patna ====================================================== Navnit Kumar, S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Verma, R/v- Alkapuri, Gardanibagh, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Economic Offence Unit through the I.G., Patna. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Mr. Satyendra Kr. Bhatnagar, Advocates For the State :
APP For the EOU :
Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 20-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State; and learned senior counsel for the Economic Offence Unit.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 109/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in connection with Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 04 of 2014, Special Case No. 14 of 2014.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated under Sections 109/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and thrust of accusation is against co-accused Kanhaiya Kumar, Assistant Director of Information and Public Relation Department, Bihar, Patna, who is said to have acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It is submitted that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from co-accused Kanhaiya Kumar which he returned subsequently through two cheques from his account. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55022 of 2018(6) dt.20-02-2019 2/2 Economic Offence Unit opposes the anticipatory bail petition on the basis of the case diary which contains ample material against the petitioner, submitting that the petitioner has acted in connivance with the co-accused Kanhaiya Kumar.
5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) U T