Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37656/2017rejected

Satyendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-14Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37656 of 2017 (12) dt.14-12-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37656 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -169 Year- 2017 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Satyendra Kumar aged about 39 Years Son of Sri Eknath Singh, R/o Road No.1, Yadav Nagar, Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sakir Ahmad, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sadar Police Station Case No. 169 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, the petitioner has paid the amount against the purchase of petrol and diesel. So far dishonour of cheque of Rs. 100000/- is concerned, the same has been dishonoured due to technical reason and this fact has been supported by the letter issued by the Branch

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37656 of 2017 (12) dt.14-12-2017 Manager concerned, which is evident from annexure-2. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that a sum of Rs. 34, 23,378/- is still outstanding before the petitioner and he is not ready to pay the same.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T