Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80998 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2021 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== PRAMOD KUMAR SON OF NARENDRA KUMAR NAVIN THE PROPRIETOR M/S KISHAN GHAR, R/O BUDHAULI (BUDAHULI), GIRHINDA, SHEIKHPURA, P.S. AND DIST.- SHEIKHPURA, PERMANENTLY R/O VILLAGE- CHARE, POST- ABGIL, P.S.- KORMA, DIST.- SHEIKHPURA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.421 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 419 and 420 of the IPC and 7 of E.C. Act. 3.

Allegedly, petitioner is said to have been involved in black marketing of Urea. It is alleged that the POS machine shown no Urea bags but 80 bags of Urea have been found in the shop of the petitioner and on the next day, only 28 bags of Urea was found.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80998 of 2023(2) dt.19-12-2023 2/2 He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. Petitioner is a licence holder of the fertilizer shop. Police has filed final form against the petitioner but the learned Court below differing with the same, took cognizance against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision petition before the concerned Court but the same was dismissed and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present anticipatory bail application. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

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