Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5688 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -42 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHODARA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Daud Nagar, Ward No. 18, P.S. Daud Nagar, District-Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Najmul Hoda with Mr. Md. Ataul Haque, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sahadra @ Sahodra P.S.Case No. 42 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, the then Junior Engineer, has lodged a police case against the informant for non-supply of articles, which have been supplied to the petitioner at the time of construction but the present case has been filed with respect to the fact that petitioner has supplied the receipt by forging his signature and in spite of the demand by the Investigating Officer he has not supplied the same.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5688 of 2017 (4) dt.28-03-2017 2/2 However, petitioner has falsely been implicated due to the fact that earlier he has filed a case against the informant. Heard learned APP as also learned counsel for the informant.

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that he has already returned the articles and the bill was passed by this petitioner after verifying the same and after no objection. However, petitioner has forged the signature of the informant and in spite of demand the I.O. did not supply the copy of the receipt. Having heard both sides and in view of the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He may surrender and make regular bail before the court below, who will examine the above submission and pass an appropriate order, preferably on the same day, without being prejudiced by this order.

This application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U