Tuntun Prasad @ Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62870 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2022 Thana- SHEIKHOPUR SARAI DistrictSheikhpura ====================================================== 1.

Tuntun Prasad @ Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar Son of Bri Mahto @ Viraj Nandan Mahto R/V- Panchi P.S- Shekhopr Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. 2.

Kunal Kumar Son of Karu Prasad @ Arun Prasad R/V- Panchi P.SShekhopr Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Harsh Anuj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 23-02-2023 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Shekhopur Sarai P.S. Case No.136 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners are said to have involved in cyber crime alongwith other co-accused persons. It is alleged that Balo Mahto is Gang leader under whom petitioners and others work. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail petition. It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62870 of 2022(2) dt.23-02-2023 2/2 It is submitted that Balo Mahto is cousin brother of petitioner no.1 and due to land dispute, the family of Balo Mahto is in inimical terms with the family of petitioner no.1, who is own uncle of petitioner no.2 and this is the reason that Balo Mahto has intentionally taken the name of the petitioners only with a view to harass and humiliate the entire family of the petitioners. It is also submitted that during investigation, nothing has come against the petitioners.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Taking into consideration the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is hereby rejected.

However, if petitioners surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners preferably on the same day without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T