Shankar Singh @ Sukar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16558 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2023 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== 1.

Shankar Singh @ Sukar Singh S/o- Late Shivpujan Singh Village- Bedvaliya Ps- Karakat Dist- Rohtas 2.

Amit Kumar S/o- Sukar Singh Village- Bedvaliya Ps- Karakat Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Most.Tetri Devi Wife of Late Satendra Yadav @ Satyendra Singh Resident of Village - Newaon Tola, P.O- Mangrowan, P.S- Kachhawa, DistrictRohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Nazir Ansari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, on being requested, informant gave Rs. 1.80 lacs to petitioner no.1 on different dates for construction of house on the assurance that he would return the same in four to five months. Later on, petitioners refused to return the money to the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners never received any amount in their bank account from opposite party no.2. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioners, who are father and son

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16558 of 2025(6) dt.25-08-2025 2/2 respectively, are named in the FIR with direct and specific allegation that they cheated Rs. 1.80 lacs from opposite party no.2. From perusal of records, it appears that opposite party no.2 has made part payment of aforesaid amount in the bank account of petitioner no.1, who happens to be son of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 has got criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the fact that there is direct and specific allegation of cheating against these petitioners, their prayer for bail is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T