Shashi Bhushan Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42732 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2015 Thana- BHAWANIPUR District- Purnia ====================================================== SHASHI BHUSHAN BHARTI Son of Ram Narayan Yadav Resident of Village-Manganj, P.S.-Jadia, District-Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Bhawanipur Police Station Case No. 252 of 2015, disclosing offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/386/504/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, as per the First Information Report, is that the son of the informant, Deepak Kumar, had applied for the post of peon for appointment in the District Court at Samastipur and the informant had gone to the Minister Beema Bharti for some recommendation, where the brother of the Minister, namely, Ashok Bharti, was present, who assured the informant that he will do necessary pairvi for the same, if Rs. 3,00,000/- would be given by the informant. It has further been alleged that the informant was told on his mobile to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42732 of 2019(2) dt.12-07-2019 2/2 in the bank account of the petitioner and, accordingly, the informant deposited a total sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner, but neither the appointment was made in favour of the informant's son nor the money was returned by the petitioner as well as other co-accused and the informant was threatened by the accused persons.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no agreement between the informant and the petitioner and on the contrary, there appears to be oral agreement between the informant and co-accused, Ashok Bharti. He further submits that co-accused Ashok Bharti and Awadhesh Mandal have been granted anticipatory bail by order, dated 24.08.2017 and 24.08.2016, passed in Criminal Misc. Nos. 35258 of 2017 and 36282 of 2016.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the entire money has been deposited in the account of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. This application is, accordingly dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √