Dismissed

Munna Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC5 Aug 2014CR. MISC./14839/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected bail petitions filed by two individuals apprehended during a police raid on a counterfeit stamp printing operation. Despite claims of no involvement or minor roles, the court rejected bail due to the serious nature of the offenses and suggestive presence at the scene.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal miscellaneous petitions for bail were rejected.

Munna Sah Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14839 of 2014 (4) dt.05-08-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14839 of 2014

¶4

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -151 Year- 2013 Thana -RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- PATNA
======================================================
Munna Sah, Son Of Ashok Sah, Resident Of Village - Badi Balia, P.S. -
Lakhminia, District - Begusarai At Present Renter Of Mantun Yadav, Devi
Asthan, Changar, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District - Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16551 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -151 Year- 2013 Thana -RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- PATNA
======================================================
Hemkant Chaudhary, S/o Late Jageshwar Chaudhary, Resident of Village
Haripur, P.S. Behera, District Darbhanga.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.14839 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Diwakar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP
(In Cr.Misc. No.16551 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Anju Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
4 05-08-2014 On an earlier occasion Cr. Misc. No. 16551/2014 as
well as Cr. Misc. No. 14839/2014 have been directed to be heard
analogously on account of having it originated from common P.S.
case bearing Ram Krishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 151/2013,
accordingly, heard together and are being disposed of by a
common order.

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14839 of 2014 (4) dt.05-08-2014

¶6

¶7

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

¶8

On getting confidential information regarding printing, manufacturing of counterfeit non judicial stamp, judicial stamp, adhesive stamp along with others as per seizure list was going on in the house of Sanjay Singh which was hired by one Ranjit Kumar, raid was conducted and during course thereof, apart from articles, seven persons were apprehended including the petitioner.

¶9

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Munna Sah (Cr.Misc.No. 14839/2014) that he has got no concern with the affair nor was he in any way involved with the process of preparation of counterfeit documents. It has further been submitted that unfortunately, petitioner happens to be brother-in-law of main accused Ranjit Kumar and had come to visit his place and during course thereof, was apprehended.

¶10

On behalf of petitioner, Hemkant Chaudhary (Cr.Misc.No. 16551/2014) it has been submitted that virtually, he is an illiterate having no concern with the business of Ranjit Kumar. Further submitted that he was employed as a guard and while he was discharging his duty, police conducted raid and that is the reason behind presence of petitioner as well as his apprehension. It has next been submitted that he happens to be under custody since 26.09.2013.

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14839 of 2014 (4) dt.05-08-2014

¶12

¶13

On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of petitioners and submitted that the recovery recollects the memory of Telgi scam by having seizure of counterfeit documents appertaining to more than crores along with dice, proforma, raw materials and machines as per seizure list. It has further been submitted that that petitioner, Hemkant Chaudhary has shifted his plea. Before learned trial court, he had pleaded that he happens to be brother-in-law of Ranjit Kumar and has come to get medically treated while at the present stage has raised the plea of being a Guard. Having their apprehension along with seizure of the items in terms of seizure list do not justify contention of petitioners that they have got no knowledge with regard to activity of Ranjit Kumar rather their presence suggests that they were also actively involved during process of printing of counterfeit documents causing loss to Government exchequer.

¶14

Appearance of petitioners, Hemkant Chaudhary as well as Munna Sah along with 5-6 others at the place of occurrence is suggestive of the fact that they both have got active involvement along with others during course of printing and processing of counterfeit documents. Hence, both the petitions are rejected.

¶15

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶16

perwez

¶17

U T

Munna Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Singh @ Deepak Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Nakhru Rai @ Naresh Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Ettar Yadav @ Ram Ettar Mahto and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Sahim Vs The State Of Bihar