Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53021/2019dismissed

Lal Bahadur Raman v. The State Of Bihar

2019-08-26Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53021 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2016 Thana- PANDAUL DistrictMadhubani ====================================================== LAL BAHADUR RAMAN Son of Late Anand Yadav Resident of VillageNirmala, P.S. Lakhnaur, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 26-08-2019 As prayed, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Section 409 IPC in paragraphs-1 and 5 of the petition, in course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 166, 168, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 173 of 2016.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the accusation of not having submitted the relevant folders of Panchayat teachers when required to do so. It is submitted that the petitioner was Panchayat Secretary during the period 19.10.2004 to 05.09.2012 and handed over all relevant documents to his successor Daya Nand Rai on 05.09.2012

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53021 of 2019(2) dt.26-08-2019 2/2 (Annexure-2). Other co-accused Shyama Kant Acharya has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Court below in A.B.P. No. 305 of 2017. The petitioner is accused in one prior case of similar nature in which he is on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned APP submits that there is nothing in Annexure-2 to indicate that the petitioner had handed over the folders to his successor at the time of giving charge.

6. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T