Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1848/2017rejected

Prakash Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-10Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1848 of 2017 (3) dt.10-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1848 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -311 Year- 2011 Thana -BIDUPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Prakash Sharma Son of Sagar Sharma Resident of Village- Kaismpur, P.S.- Nayagaon, District- Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nakul Kumar Jamuar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 311 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, after changing ATM card of the informant amount of Rs. 4,76,374/- was withdrawn and after inquiry it transpired that in the account of the petitioner amount was deposited.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has lodged information as the ATM card of the petitioner was also changed by some other person vide annexure-2. The petitioner has been implicated with oblique motive, only on suspicion he has been implicated and is suffering in custody since 14.09.2016 and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1848 of 2017 (3) dt.10-02-2017 Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has committed the crime and in his account Rs. 1,95,000/- was transferred, further the petition filed by the petitioner vide annexure-2 appears manufactured one and as such the petitioner does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail after remaining further six months in custody. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T