Amit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31378 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -573 Year- 2017 Thana -SASARAM MUFFSIL District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Amit Singh, Son of Sri Ram Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Mahatadih Colony, Police Station - Nirsa, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ramchandra Sahani ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-08-2018 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sasaram Mufassil P.S. Case No. 573/2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33, 41 and 42 of the Forest Act. Allegation against the petitioner is that his truck was intercepted with illegal stone chips and when police came at the spot, then the driver started fleeing away and the owner of the truck Rakesh Kumar Singh by changing the number, engaged the said truck in carrying stone chips.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the owner is Rakesh Kumar Singh and the petitioner is falsely been made accused in this case and he is no way involved in illegal transportation of stone chips.

Heard learned A.P.P. also who opposed the prayer for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31378 of 2018 (4) dt.27-08-2018 2/2 anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that material shows that on 29.04.2017, the power of attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of Rakesh Kumar Singh then after the truck was intercepted on 22.04.2017, as such, at the time when the truck was seized petitioner was the owner of the truck. Having heard both sides, in view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner rather he should surrender and pray for regular bail, which would be considered on the merits of this case without being prejudiced by order of this Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/Amjad/- U T