Sanjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24297 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -243 Year- 2016 Thana -RUPASPUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Sanjay Singh, Son of Gopalji Singh, Resident of Village Bagarhi, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan , Senior Advocate Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sir Pramod Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2018 Heard the parties. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S.Case No. 243 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner himself introduced and his friend Upendra Narain Singh@ Rintu that they are sourceful person and they got the informant appointed and on that insurance, the informant paid total Rs. 9,00000/- in the Bank account of the co-accused, Upendra Narain Singh @ Rintu and after employment the informant agreed to pay the rest amount of Rs.6,00000/- but when the service did not materialize, she demanded Rs. 9,00000/- from the petitioner but petitioner refused to return the said amount.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24297 of 2018 (4) dt.09-05-2018 2/2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had not taken the amount from the informant and the said amount was paid to the co-accused Upendra Narayan Singh @ Rintu and the informant is relative to Upendra Narain Singh @ Rintu and there is no role of the petitioner in this case. Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant, who opposes the prayer for bail.

Having heard both the parties and in view of facts and circumstance pf the case that specific allegation attributed against the petitioners that they fraudulently introduced the informant and cheated away, the application of anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

In such view of the matter, let the petitioner, above named, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected with a direction to the petitioner that if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below and makes prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of this Court. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T