Dr. Mani Shankar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72807 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2016 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Dr. Mani Shankar Chaudhary Son of Late Vishwanath Chaudhary Resident of Village- Faridabad, P.S.- Sonpur, District- Saran and At Present Jahuri Bazar, P.S.- Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Raj Kumar Sao S/o Bhagwan Sao Resident of Bibiganj, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Niraj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-02-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No.174 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 of the IPC and 138 of N.I. Act.

This is third attempt for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No.14270 of 2017. Further, in second attempt vide order dated 10.01.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.24037 of 2017 the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected with a liberty to the petitioner that if

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72807 of 2019(2) dt.19-02-2020 2/2 he makes payment of the remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- through Bank Draft within a period of three months from the date of order and files an affidavit in the Court below along with the application for bail, the Court below may release him on bail.

Considering the fact that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the present anticipatory bail petition, that too, on third occasion and petitioner is still at large as well as the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T