Mohammad Fazlur Rahman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80561 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2018 Thana- BENIPATTI District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

MOHAMMAD FAZLUR RAHMAN, Son of Md. Rezaur Rahman, Junior Engineer (Contract), at present resident of Koshi Colony, Benipatti, Police Station- Baenipatti, District- Madhubani, permanent address- resident of Village- Purainia, P.O.- Sahiyota Lalganj, Police Station- Lalganj, DistrictVaishali. 2.

Pramod Kumar Singh @ Sri Pramod Kumar, Son of Sri Sahdeo Prasad, Junior Engineer (Contract), at present posted at Irrigation Division, Nawada, permanent address resident of Village- Nagarnousa, Police StationNagarnousa, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Viveka Nand Singh,Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 29-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

On account of interpolation done in Measurement Book No.362, this case has been instituted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that case has been instituted against these two petitioners along with Rajeev Ranjan who has been granted anticipatory bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.68651 of 2018. The case of the petitioners stood on similar footing, accordingly the petitioners should also be allowed anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and submitted that these petitioners are the real culprit who in order to have their escape involved Rajeev Ranjan and so, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80561 of 2019(3) dt.29-06-2020 2/2 petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Gone through the order passed by the coordinate Bench while granting anticipatory bail to Rajeev Ranjan under Criminal Miscellaneous No.68651 of 2018. From perusal of the same, it is evident that these petitioners were the persons who have complained against Rajeev Ranjan on 02.02.2018 regarding interpolation committed by Rajeev Ranjan in the measurement book and, later on 03.02.2018 they themselves signed over the aforesaid measurement book that is indicative of the fact that activity having so alleged against Rajeev Ranjan was false as, the aforesaid measurement book appears to be in their custody and that happens to be the finding during course of investigation. Paragraph 9 of the case diary details how interpolations have been made in the measurement book.

Consequent thereupon, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Whereupon, the interim protection given to them under order dated 20.02.2020 is hereby recalled.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) skpathak/- U T