Sunil Kumar Ray @ Sunil Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18403 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2024 Thana- NATWAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Ray @ Sunil Singh Son of Late Jagdish Rai @ Late Jagdeesh Ray Resident of Village- East behlari, Ps- Natwar, Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhananjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madan Kumar, APP Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra, Adv Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that petitioner was known to him through his relative Saroj, further petitioner disclosed that his son is District Magistrate and he could secure a government job for the informant, accordingly the amount decided was Rs. 6 lakh and the informant paid an amount of Rs. 4,11,000/-, but then petitioner despite receiving the money did not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18403 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 2/2 provide job, thus informant alleges that petitioner cheated him. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no offence against the petitioner is made out for the reason that informant is alleging that petitioner did not fulfill his promise of getting a backdoor appointment for the informant.

5.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that he has instruction not to oppose the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. 6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Natwar P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T