Ram Vinay Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17726 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2021 Thana- MAIN P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== RAM VINAY PRASAD Son of Umeshwar Prasad @ Laungi Yadav Resident of Village - Banshi Bigha, Police Station- Main (Paigbigha O.P.), District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar No.2 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-02-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Main (Paibigha O.P.) P.S.Case No. 36 of 2021.

As per allegation, the petitioner and his father requested the informant to advance loan, whereupon he deposited Rs. 12,03,000/- in his Account No.4445248830, maintained with Kotak Mahendra Bank, Branch Gaya. The transactions were made between 29.01.2021 to 25.02.2021. Despite persistent requests by the informant, the petitioner did not return his money.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation made by the informant does not tally with the transactions mentioned in the documents annexed with the FIR, which are details of the account. Though he has admitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17726 of 2022(7) dt.08-02-2023 2/2 the transactions were made.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner assured him to return the loan amount, but despite persistent requests, he did not refund the amount.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstance, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and make a prayer for regular bail.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T