Noushad Ali @ Girdhari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71332 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2022 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Noushad Ali @ Girdhari Son of Late Samsad Khan Resident of MohallaJakki Shahid (Sasaram), P.S.- Sasaram Nagar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar.
2.
Mohan Kumar Saw Son of Late Laxmi Narayan Saw Resident of MohallaChavar Takiya, P.O. and P.S.- Sasaram Nagar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP For the Complainant :
Mr. Lallan Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.26 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that the petitioner being in collusion with co-accused, Om Prakash Kumar extracted money from the complainant by way of deceiving with a view to grab the money of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71332 of 2022(3) dt.28-02-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail petition. It is further submitted that petitioner has no role to play in the instant case. The petitioner is only the mediator and no money way given to the petitioner by the complainant.
Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is also involved in the instant case and he is a land broker.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T