Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19235/2024bail rejected

Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-22Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19235 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-605 Year-2022 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Son of Jivan Ray Resident of Mohalla-Dujara Purvi Gali, Rajendra Ghat, P.S.-Buddha Colony, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandrashekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-10-2024 Heard Mr. Prashant Singh who is representing Mr. Chandrashekhar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Kumar learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Rampur P.S. Case No. 605 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120(B), 419 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 06.11.2022 by the informant, Manorama Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that she had an agreement with the petitioner for purchase of land for consideration amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- and advance amount of total Rs. 51,00,000/- was/were paid to the petitioner. However, later, she came to the notice of the informant that the land belongs to the Housing Board and as such, she demanded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19235 of 2024(6) dt.22-10-2024 2/2 money which was not provided which led to the F.I.R.

4. In this case, long rope was given by the coordinate Benches to the petitioner which also included grant of provisional bail so that he could repay/ return the amount. As he failed to do so, the coordinate Bench on 08.10.2024 recalled the provisional bail granted to the petitioner on 03.07.2024.

5. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the informant that despite the direction of the coordinate Bench to surrender within a period of three days, the petitioner chose to look the other way.

6. As recorded above, the petitioner was granted provisional bail, he misused by defying the direction given by the Court, the same was recalled, still he chose not to surrender. The petitioner does not dispute the contention of the learned counsel for the informant.

7. In that background, no case is made out and the present regular bail application in connection with Rampur P.S. Case No. 605 of 2022, stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Guddu/- U T