Ashutosh Kumar Sinha @Ashutosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8049 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2021 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== Ashutosh Kumar Sinha @Ashutosh Kumar SON OF Upendra Kumar Sinha Village- Kashipur, P S. -Rajapakar, District -Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Nirmala Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Kumar Praveen, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 Heard Ms. Nirmala Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kumar Praveen, learned Counsel for the Informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 129 of 2021 for the offence registered under sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 05.04.2021 by the informant, Rajesh Kumar Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he met the accused persons and Pankaj Kumar Sinha/Niraj Kumar Sinha introduced him to the petitioner herein and then they went to Hajipur where they met Ambarish Singh and accordingly, paid Rs. 27,60,000/- for the purchase of machines
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8049 of 2024(5) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 as incorporated in the F.I.R. However, once the amount was transferred neither the machine was provided nor payment made. When the demand was made, the accused persons further threatened of dire consequences which followed the F.I.R.
4. In this case, earlier case diary was called for which has come and learned APP echoes the allegation made in the F.I.R., charge sheet already stands submitted and in that background, he opposes the prayer.
5. Taking into account the allegation that has come against the accused persons including the petitioner who with full intention of cheating took the informant to Hajipur and made him to pay Rs. 27,60,000/- which despite request is not being returned.
6. This Court does not deem it fit and proper to extend him privilege of anticipatory bail, the same is accordingly rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T