Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82547 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-355 Year-2023 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SANTOSH KUMAR S/O LATE SHATRUGHAN SHARMA @ SHATRUGHAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- BISHUNPUR, P.S- GHOSHI, DIST.- JEHANABAD.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Neeraj, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 355 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of E.C. Act.

3. Allegedly, petitioner is said to have committed black marketing of 136.17 quintal of rice and 42.54 quintal wheat.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82547 of 2023(2) dt.05-01-2024 2/2 based on concocted facts. The real fact is that the concerned inspecting authority have not inspected the other room of the petitioner's shop where the remain stock was kept. The license of the petitioner has also been suspended by the concerned authority. It is further submitted that the beneficiaries have given an affidavit stating therein that the petitioner used to supply food grain timely, as mentioned in Annexure 2. Petitioner has five criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, 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) divyanshi/- U T