Devendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64584 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2021 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== DEVENDRA RAM Son of Shri Satyanarayan Ram Resident of Village - Dostiya, P.S. - Sonbarsa, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh for the informant :
Ms. Alka Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 10-01-2023 The defect nos. 9, 10 and 11 already stands complied. Let the defect no. 12 be ignored.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 184 of 2021 registered for the offence under sections 420 of 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty politics. As a matter of fact, the petitioner helped out the informant when she was in need and when the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64584 of 2021(6) dt.10-01-2023 2/2 petitioner demanded his remuneration, she lodged the present false case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant submits that there is direct allegation against this petitioner of fraudulently taking out the money of the informant. During investigation witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the submissions advanced on behalf fo the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected.
mcv/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T