Ranjeet Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19558 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2016 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
RANJEET KUMAR MANDAL, Son of Mahendra Mandal, Resident of Mohalla - Krishna Toli, P.S.- Brohampura, District - Muzaffarpur 2.
Randhir Kumar Mandal @ Randhir Kumar, Son of Mahendra Mandal Resident of Mohalla - Krishna Toli, P.S.- Brohampura, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Subhash Chandra, Son of Sri Tirakh, Resident of Sikta Bazar, P.S.- Sikta, District - W. Champaran.
... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2019 Petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Complaiant Case No. 389 of 2016 lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation as per complaint petition is that at the request of the petitioners the complainant engaged them as office assistant in his dental clinic and after three months they demanded Rs.2 lac from the complainant for the purpose of marriage of sister and thereafter on the ground of illness of their father the complainant gave Rs.60,000/- to the petitioners and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19558 of 2019(3) dt.17-05-2019 2/2 further they requested for Rs.40,000/- for treatment and also taken his motorcycle but neither they return the money nor the motorcycle.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no chit of paper in support of the allegation of demand and the complainant is not a Dentist and all the allegations are false and concocted.
Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that it is a clear case of cheating.
In view of above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T