Umar Ali @ Md. Umar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65388 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2017 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Umar Ali @ Md. Umar Son of Badruddin Resident of Fatehullah, Police Station - Maheshi, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-10-2024 Heard Md. Najmul Hodda, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Kotwali (Adampur) P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017 instituted under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 30.04.2017 by the informant, Manoj Kumar Sah.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that for running Disney Land Fair, the informant had made certain advance to accused. He was partnership of 17 per cent as also deputed as Manager. Once the fair was over, he was not only removed from the partnership but also from the post of the Manager and no amount was paid and further threatened of dire consequences. Accordingly, the FIR.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65388 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false statement has been made in this regard. Other similar placed co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by a bench of this Court (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) in Cr. Misc. No. 34497 of 2017 as then was which is part of the petition as Annexure-3.

5. Learned APP , Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh points out that the allegation is of the year 2017 and even the order which the learned counsel for the petitioner is showing is dated 10.08.2017 and there is nothing on record to show how he took seven years to approach this Court for anticipatory bail.

6. In view of the said fact that has emerged, the matter is of the year 2017and seven years later, the present anticipatory bail, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seek bail. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

7. If the petitioner surrenders within four weeks and prays for bail, the same shall be taken up and dispose of preferably on the same day.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T