Sant Kumar @ Satya Priya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14864 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2016 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Sant Kumar @ Satya Priya, S/o- Late Brahmdeo Prasad, resident of MohallaSanicharapar, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 219 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is of duping the informant on the pretext of providing job.
4. Various submissions and efforts have been made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to persuade this Court that the present F.I.R. is nothing, but malafide in nature and moreover the petitioner was not acquainted with the present F.I.R. It is further contended that the informant has also got instituted a Complaint Case through one Ram Pyare Prasad,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14864 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2025 2/2 bearing Complaint Case No. 2859 (C) of 2016, by giving a concocted allegation and facts in order to extort money from the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and informant oppose the bail application and submitted that the petitioner had already moved before the learned Sessions Court for grant of his anticipatory bail long back in the year 2016 in ABP No. 5877 of 2016, which came to be rejected on 20.12.2016 and after eight years, the present anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner had already been rejected long back in the year 2016, and the petitioner has been evading his arrest; and now the approached this Court after eight years, this Court is not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T