Ganpati Sah @ Guddu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89743 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2024 Thana- KORANSARAI District- Buxar ====================================================== Ganpati Sah @ Guddu Sah, Son of Mahendra Sah, Resident of VillageDihpur P.S- Nawanagar, District- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Korensarai P.S. Case No. 91 of 2024 dated 12.10.2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 179 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short 'B.N.S.').

3. The main submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that though the instant matter relates to the recovery of counterfeit Indian currency notes but there is no allegation as to the recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of this petitioner or from his house and co-accused, namely, Mukesh Kumar was found in the possession of the alleged counterfeit currency notes who

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89743 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 2/2 disclosed the name of this petitioner as being involved in supplying of alleged counterfeit currency notes and except this, there is no material against this petitioner.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and submits that the case is under investigation and the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is serious allegation against him.

5. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the order impugned. The instant matter relates to the recovery of counterfeit Indian currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/-, though the alleged recovery is said to have been made from the possession of co-accused Mukesh Kumar but as per disclosure made by him, it was the petitioner who supplied the counterfeit notes to him (co-accused) and the case is under investigation. Considering the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T