Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9831/2017rejected

Rambali Yadav @ Bali Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-12-14Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9831 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1489 Year-2013 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Rambali Yadav @ Bali Yadav son of Late Somar Yadav Resident of Village - Kurnaion, P.S. - Paraiya, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ranjan Singh Son of Sri Shyamdeo Narayan Singh resident of Mohalla - South Church Road, near Kochar Petrol Pump, Gali No. 1, P.S. - Civil Lines, District - Gaya.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SMT. ANITA KUMARI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-12-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1489 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The dispute involved is purely civil in nature for which no criminal prosecution is warranted. Co-accused Gorakh has been granted anticipatory bail by the Court below and the case of this petitioner is similar to his case.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the counsel appearing for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9831 of 2017(8) dt.14-12-2017 2/2 submits that there is specific allegation against this petitioner and there is documentary proof that this petitioner has taken money from the complainant. Moreover, petitioner has criminal antecedent.

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