Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54425/2016rejected

Manoj Kumar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-20Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54425 of 2016 (5) dt.20-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54425 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -198 Year- 2016 Thana -RAXAUL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Manoj Kumar Singh son of Late Ram Bahadur Singh,

2. Mala Singh Wife of Manoj Kumar Singh, Both are resident of VillageKoiriya Tola, Triloki Nagar, Police Station- Raxaul, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Raxaul Police Station Case No. 198 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and no specific overt act is attributed to them. In fact, the petitioners have not violated any terms of contract rather the informant himself cheated the petitioners. In this regard, earlier the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Singh has lodged a complaint being

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54425 of 2016 (5) dt.20-06-2017 case No. C-317 of 2015 against the informant, which is evident from annexure-3. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioners have cheated the informant and have taken Rs. 700,000/- from the informant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail of these petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T