Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39610/2017rejected

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-08Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39610 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2017 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Shri Bishndeo Mahton, At present Agriculture Convenor, Araria, P.S.- Araria, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI MANISH KUMAR 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Araria P.S. Case No. 368 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as not a single farmer has complained to the authority concerned about the non-delivery of agricultural tools. The District Agriculture Officer has not properly inquired the matter. As a matter of fact, the District Agriculture Officer, during course of enquiry, demanded illegal money from this petitioner and on refusal petitioner has been falsely dragged in this case. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the matter involved is of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39610 of 2017(4) dt.08-12-2017 2/2 misappropriation of Government fund. Petitioner being the Agriculture Convenor submitted the false report showing delivery of agricultural tools, but on verification it was found that the report given by the petitioner is false. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T