Sanjeet Kumar Sharma @ Sanjeet Sharma v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35112 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -192 Year- 2017 Thana -BEUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Sanjeet Kumar Sharma @ Sanjeet Sharma, Son of Nand Kumar Sharma, Resident of 5, SCHB Colony, Diamod Point, Gunrock Enclave, P.S. & District- Secunderabad, Telangana.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Priyank Priyadarshi, Son of Krishnandan Sharma, R/o Lok Nayak Path, Vijaynagar, Kankarbagh Police Station, Kankarbagh, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr Rajeev Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2018 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Beur P. S. Case No. 192 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 365, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. As per F. I. R. allegation against the petitioner, who is Director of RCM Infrastructure Limited and informant was assigned as petty contractor, who supplied the material of the road construction, is that the company deducted the money of the informant and gave the same work to other Millennium Company. It is further alleged that when the informant went to demand his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35112 of 2018 (2) dt.09-07-2018 2/3 money to the house of the petitioner, he along with other coaccused assaulted to the informant and he was dragged on vehicle but any how they fled away from there and snatched golden of the informant.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not satisfied with the work of the informant as he has removed him and final settlement has also been made, which is annexed as Annexure-3 and now it has been allotted the same to the other petty contractor due to that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- ( Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 192 of 2017 to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 ( 2) Cr.P.C. with other that bailors should be local having sufficient

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35112 of 2018 (2) dt.09-07-2018 3/3 immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned and petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and shall be present before police as and when required, otherwise prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T