Patna High CourtCR. MISC./72552/2024dismissed

Ratnesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-29Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72552 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2022 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ratnesh Kumar S/o Jaikishundev Rai R/o Village- Champapur, Yadav Tola, P.S- Patahi, District- East Champarna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 29-10-2024 Heard Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Patahi P.S. Case No. 208 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 413, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 11.10.2022, State Food Corporation Motihari received an information that vehicle no. BR-06-GC-7590 laden with 112 sacks of grain for its distribution under MOM Yojana in five schools but in course of GPS tracking of the said vehicle it is has been found that the food gains allotted to 01 school i.e. UMS Belwa Pokhar have been supplied at other places instead of being

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72552 of 2024(2) dt.29-10-2024 2/2 supplied to the school.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is not engaged in any such activity ever and neither the petitioner has acted as delivery agent of alleged recovered rice of MDM. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner acted as a delivery agent in the alleged occurrence.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the fact that the petitioner has acted as a delivery agent in the alleged occurrence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T