Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39601/2017dismissed

Alakh Niranjan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-19Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39601 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -452 Year- 2016 Thana -BEGUSARAI TOWN District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Alakh Niranjan, S/o Late Jagat Narayan Sinha, Resident of VillagePokharia, P.S.- Town Begusarai, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

19-08-2017 Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parmeshwar Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, who is named as one of the accused in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 452 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 420, 487, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that save and except confessional statement of one of the coaccused Gopal Kumar Jha, there is nothing to implicate the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the Court that seizure list also does not suggest as to any document in the name of petitioner was seized and petitioner has falsely been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39601 of 2017 (2) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that sister of the petitioner namely Asha Sinha, who was running an N.G.O., has already been granted anticipatory bail and as such, the petitioner may be extended same privilege.

However, considering the seriousness of the accusation, which suggests that innocent unemployed young people were being cheated by petitioner and others in an organized manner, the Court is of the opinion that it cannot be a case of extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T