Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63762/2018dismissed

Raj Kumar Sah And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2019-02-14Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.63762 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2017 Thana- NOKHA DistrictRohtas ======================================================

1. Raj Kumar Sah Son of Sri Ganga Bishun Sao.

2. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Sah, Son of Raj Kumar Sah, Both are resident of village- Amaithi, Police Station- Sanjhauli in the district- of Rohtas. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

For the Informant :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.N. Sukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 14-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 237 of 2017.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated merely because they happen to be the father and brother respectively of Manish Kumar Ranjan who was the owner of Ms. Maa Durga Shakti Agro Pvt. Ltd. and had issued cheque towards payment of supply of rice to the informant but which had been bounced. The petitioners claim clean antecedents except petitioner no. 1 who was implicated in one other case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63762 of 2018(5) dt.14-02-2019 2/2 after institution of the present F.I.R.

4. The petitioners are specifically alleged in the F.I.R. to be the owner of Ms. Maa Durga Shakti Agro Pvt. Ltd. The submission of the petitioners to the contrary is however not supported by any averment in the petition. On prayer being made, three weeks' time had been granted to the petitioners by order dated 16.01.2019 to take a stand in the matter but however no affidavit has been filed till date.

5. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant have opposed the anticipatory bail petition.

6. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar/BT U T