Krishnanandan Sah @ Krishnandan Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.44447 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2014 Thana -SONBARSA District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Krishnanandan Sah @ Krishnandan Sah Son of Mantu Sah R/o Village Malangwa, Ward No. 2, P.s. Malangwa, District Sarlahi, Nepal .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 04-03-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is in custody since 28.5.2014 in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case no. 57 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 231, 232, 237, 238 and 240 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he had purchased some articles from the shop of Ravindra Mahto and gave the money which was later on detected as counterfeit note. The petitioner was apprehended by the public. In the meantime, the police personnel came there and on search huge counterfeit notes to the tune of Rs.86,000/- Nepali currency and 16,000/- Indian currency of Rs.1000/- denomination were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44447 of 2014 (3) dt.04-03-2015 2/2 the petitioner used to sell articles moving from door to door. Rabindra Mahto had taken some articles from the petitioner and when petitioner demanded money he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Learned counsel for the State submits that fake currency notes have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and earlier also he used fake currency notes. After investigation chargesheet has already been submitted.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail. His prayer for bail is rejected.
Let the trial of the petitioner in Sonbarsa P. S. Case no. 57 of 2014 be expedited.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) sudip/- U T