Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83586/2023dismissed

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-18Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83586 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2023 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH KUMAR RAM S/O RAJENDRA RAM R/O MOHALLA- KALYANPUR, P.S- JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anish Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 45 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Lottery Regulation Act and Section 11 of the Bihar Bengal Lottery/Gambling Act.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner supplied the lottery tickets to the co-accused Md. Mahtab, who was arrested and from his possession, lottery tickets were recovered.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. His name has figured only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Md. Mahtab. The petitioner is Class-IV,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83586 of 2023(2) dt.18-01-2024 2/2 employee in Girls College, Jamui.

5. As mentioned in paragraph-3 of the petitioner, three cases of similar nature have been registered against the petitioner to which the learned counsel submits that in one case, final form has been submitted against the petitioner.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T