← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./62459/2018rejected

Sunny Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-08-28Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62459 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2018 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== Sunny Kumar Son of Ajit Singh, R/o Mohl- Sadikpur Dhanuki, P.S.- Barh Rs, Distt- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bikramdeo Singh Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raju Giri Mr. Santosh Kr. Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Nawada (Nagar) P.S. Case No. 415 of 2018 registered under Sections 420, 409, 467 and 468/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of C.J.M., Nawada.

Submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dirty politics. Further submission is that the work of the petitioner was very limited. He only used to collect relevant documents from the borrowing customers and submitted it in the office.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62459 of 2018(10) dt.28-08-2019 2/2 opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is named accused in the first information report. Further learned counsel submits that on perusal of paragraph nos. 55, 62, 63 and 66 of the case diary, it appears that petitioner on the basis of forged and fabricated documents created false customers and granted loan and caused huge loss to the Company. Hence, petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T