Jai Ram Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53729 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -646 Year- 2015 Thana -KANKARBAGH District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Jai Ram Prasad Singh Son of Late Sheodhari Singh, H.O.D., Dept. of Chemistry at Ram Krishan Dwarika College, Ashok Nagar, Kankarbagh, Police Station- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 646 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C.

Allegedly, the petitioner and his son Kanhaiya Singh @ Krishna Yadav and another co-accused took Rs. 4,60,000/- to get admitted the son of the informant in I.S.M.I.S.T, Chennai in the Engineering course and got admitted the son of the informant in another campus after depositing half amount and in that way cheated the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53729 of 2016 (4) dt.09-02-2017 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that no offence as alleged is made out, the petitioner has been made accused without any legal evidence, the son of the informant has already taken admission and without any basis the petitioner has been made accused and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration as he has got no concern with the so called office of S.I. counseling, there is no direct or specific allegation against the petitioner, he is posted as H.O.D. in the constituent College at Patna.

The learned A.P.P. seriously opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner, his son and another co-accused have cheated the informant. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of C.J.M. Patna. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T