Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83601/2019rejected

Raj Kishor Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

2021-02-19Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83601 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-534 Year-2018 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Raj Kishor Gupta, aged about 25 years, Male, Son of Shambhu Sah, Resident of Village Madhopur Tola, Vishunpur (Shripur Tola Vishunpur), P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Amit Patel, Son of Late Ram Pukar Patel, Resident of Village & P.O. Rulahi, P.S. Majhauliya, District West Champaran.

3. Sumit Kumar, Son of Late Ram Pukar Patel, Resident of Village & P.O. Rulahi, P.S. Majhauliya, District West Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-02-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Majhauliya P.S. Case No.534 of 2018, registered under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner took on hire the tractor of the informant but the petitioner did not pay any installment to the finance company nor the petitioner paid any amount to the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner purchased the tractor of the informant after paying

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83601 of 2019(6) dt.19-02-2021 2/2 Rs.3,00,000/- for that Sugauli P.S. Case No.27 of 2019 was registered against the informant, but it appears that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents and he is also accused in Sugauli P.S. Case No.19 of 2015 registered under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Taking into consideration the facts and nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T