Lal Bahadur Mourya @ Lal Bahadur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39886 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2018 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== LAL BAHADUR MOURYA @ LAL BAHADUR Son of Ramadhar Mourya Resident of Village-Trilokpur, Police Station-Revatipur, District-Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-06-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rajpur P.S. case No. 223 of 2018 registered under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B of the IPC.

The informant named the petitioner along with five others and alleged that petitioner along with Shiva Mourya, Ram Kuber Singh and Mukesh Yadav came to the house of his maternal uncle and assured him to provide job in Indian Railway. It is further alleged that petitioner and others disclosed that Ram Prakash Singh Kushwaha, who happens to be relation of the petitioner, would provide job to the informant and others but even after extracting money the petitioner did not provide job nor returned the money.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is brother of Shiva Mourya. Ram Praksh Singh Kushwaha is father-in-law of Shiva Mourya. The petitioner never assured the informant and his friends to provide any job.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39886 of 2019(2) dt.28-06-2019 2/2 When the informant himself failed in his object to get job through back door method made allegation against the petitioner and others of taking money for the purpose of providing job. It is further submitted that petitioner did not receive even a farthing from the informant or his friends.

The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but the learned counsel for the informant could not be able to show any paper or any allegation made in the FIR that petitioner took any money from the informant or his friends.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest/ surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in connection with Rajpur P.S. case No. 223 of 2018, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T