Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39159/2017rejected

Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-30Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39159 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2017 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Sanjay Yadav Son of Masudan Yadav Resident of village- Jetsari, P.S.- Govindpur, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-10-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 504, 506, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute involved is purely civil in nature. Informant's wife had executed the sale deed only after receiving the full consideration money. As a matter of fact, informant had taken money from this petitioner, and when petitioner demanded the same, the present false case has been lodged only to put pressure. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner has concealed his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39159 of 2017(4) dt.30-10-2017 2/2 criminal antecedent. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, it has been categorically mentioned that petitioner is accused in five cases. Further, the prayer for anticipatory bail of co-accused Shamphul Devi has been rejected by this Hon'ble Court.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T