Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4028/2020rejected

Ashok Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2020-06-23Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4028 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2011 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== ASHOK KUMAR PASWAN Son of Late Ram Karan Paswan Resident of Village-Dihchhapra, P.S-Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 138 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. No allegation of misappropriation is attributed against this petitioner. From the allegations levelled no offence under section 409 and 420 I.P.C. is made out against this petitioner. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4028 of 2020(4) dt.23-06-2020 2/2 the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner's name has come in the written report and there are allegations of misappropriation against him. Further, the present case is of the year 2011 and the petitioner after almost ten years has now come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. He submits that petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T