Md. Washim @ Shekh Washim @ Shekh Vasim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18597 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1595 Year-2018 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Md. Washim @ Shekh Washim @ Shekh Vasim S/o Late Shekh Nishar Ahmad R/o vill - Loharitola Marpatahir, P.s.- Bairagnia, Distt.- Sitamarhi, At present Mohalla Data Kambal Sah Mazar, P.S.- Nagar, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mohammad Naim @ Md. Nayeem S/o Md. Tashlim R/o Mohalla - Chakbashu, Kachchi Sarai, P.S.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Ms.Nitu Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Case No. 1595 of 2018, in which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint filed by Md. Nayeem, is that on the assurance to arrange a job for the complainant in Dubai, U.A.E., the petitioner has taken a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioner has also taken a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of flight ticket and police

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18597 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/3 clearance certificate. The petitioner sent the complainant to Dubai on a tourist visa saying that when he would reach Dubai, his person will arrange for work visa. It is alleged that after 28 days of reaching Dubai, the petitioner and/or his man could not arrange the work visa for the complainant and later on, when the father of the complainant sent him the flight ticket, he returned to India.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity with the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner was sent to Dubai, the flight ticket of which was provided by the petitioner to the complainant. Since the work visa could not be provided by the U.A.E. authorities, as such, the job could not be provided to the complainant.

5. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that there is direct allegation that on the false assurance, the petitioner has taken a huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the petitioner is having criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence, I am not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18597 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 3/3 inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √