Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21816/2017dismissed

Nandlal Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-01Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21816 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2017 Thana -KUDRA District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Nandlal Ram Son of Ramji Ram, Resident of Village- Siwo, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur at Bhabua.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2017 Heard Sri Tribhuwan Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner ,apprehending his arrest in Kudra P.S. Case No.11 of 2017, G.R.No.234/17 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself has initially submitted a report for lodging an F.I.R. against one Kanhaiya Ram, who is District Incharge of Chand Jan Kalyan Samitee. However, the informant i.e. the District Programme Officer submitted a report

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21816 of 2017 (2) dt.01-07-2017 2/2 against number of accused persons including the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, by way of referring to the F.I.R. submits that the F.I.R. itself indicates that the petitioner was receiving Rs.3600/- on the name of providing employment to the teacher. However, he accepted that he was issuing receipt for only Rs.3000/-. According to him, in the F.I.R. there is allegation against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T