Ajhar Khan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34505 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAIRA District- SARAN ====================================================== Ajhar Khan S/o Shaheb Khan, Resident of village- Chhokta Tarwan, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 16-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the allegation the petitioner along with co-accused Amarjeet Kumar, on pretext of providing employment at Dubai, had taken Rs, 1,50,000/- from the informant and in place of Dubai informant was sent to Malaysia. In Malaysia he was confined to a room along with 34 other persons. Co-accused Raju Kumar Singh conveyed that if he manages Rs. 65,000/- only then he would be sent back to India otherwise all of them would die of hunger. Thereafter, he provided cell-phone also by which he had talked
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34505 of 2015 (3) dt.16-10-2015 2/2 with the father-in-law who some how arranged Rs. 65,000/- and deposited in the account of the co-accused Raju Kumar Singh. Thereafter, he was sent back to India. It is alleged that petitioner is a member of a gang of cons who are engaged in deceiving unemployed young persons in the aforesaid manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact he is also victim of such gang and he was also sent to Thailand. In support of his submission he appended with a bill showing his tickets to Thailand. However, it is contended on behalf of the State that his aforesaid statement is of no value as he has not lodged any complaint against co-accused persons. In above view of the matter, this Court would not be inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- U T