Santosh Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9834 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -662 Year- 2015 Thana -KATIHAR District- KATIHAR ======================================================

1. Santosh Kumar, Son of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh @ Sukhdeo Mandal, Resident of Village - Madhusudanpur Post Sahjadpur, P.S. - Masudanpur, District - Bhagalpur.

2. Sonu Kumar, Son of Umesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Mansher, P.O. - Sahjadpur, P.S. - Masudanpur, District - Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangiv Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2016 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Katihar (N) P.S. Case No. 662 of 2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. The accusation is that both the petitioners were selected as Constable in Bihar Military Police, Katihar and they were informed on mobile to appear for verification of signature and writing, but both were disappeared on 17.10.2015. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, in fact, the petitioners were appointed as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9834 of 2016 (3) dt.25-04-2016 2/2 constable in B.M.P.7, Katihar, but due to illness, the petitioners left Bihar and due to that reason, they could not appear on 17.10.2015 for verification of their signature as such absence of the petitioners in verification of their signatures and writing bona fide.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) manish/- U T