Pradeep Mahto @ Pradeep Singh @ Pradip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55821 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2016 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Pradeep Mahto @ Pradeep Singh @ Pradip Kumar Son of Late Laxmi Mahto Resident of Mohalla - Chandra Vihar Colony, Nepali Nagar, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna, Permanent resident of Village - Badhauna, P.S. Pakaribarawan, District - Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-06-2022 Heard both parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act.

Prosecution case in brief is that this petitioner was doing illegal construction work on the land of Bihar State Housing Cooperative Federation Ltd.

It is submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR. During course of investigation, name of this petitioner has surfaced in this case on the disclosure of one Chandradeo Chaurasia who disclosed that petitioner is the owner of the land

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55821 of 2021(3) dt.28-06-2022 2/2 in which alleged construction is being done. It is important to mention here that petitioner has got no land in the said Chandra Bihar Colony situated in Nepali Nagar where construction is going on. There is vague allegation and there is no document on record which shows that petitioner is owner of the said land. Counsel for the State however vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner has got five criminal antecedents of similar nature.

Considering the facts aforesaid and criminal antecedents of similar nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T