Sandesh Kumar @ Sandesh Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27914 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2017 Thana -RAMGARH District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Sandesh Kumar @ Sandesh Chaudhary, S/o Sri Ram Awadh Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Kariram, P.S.-Nuaon, District-Kaimur (Bhabua). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Pronati Singh, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 21-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ramgarh (Nuaon) P. S. Case No. 81 of 2017 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 420, 467, 668, 471, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner has been indicted with taking Rs. 5 lakhs from the informant in the name of managing job for her son in the Bank and the petitioner took away the son of the informant along with him for providing appointment in the Bank, but the son of the informant was not provided with the said appointment and when the informant demanded money from the petitioner, he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27914 of 2017 (2) dt.21-06-2017 2/3 refused to return her money and also assaulted her. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and he has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case. No money was paid to the petitioner rather paid to one Pawan Kumar Chaudhary who happens to be the relative of the petitioner. Pawan Kumar Chaudahry got the son of the informant appointed on the post of D.O. under Purvanchal Agriculatural Marketing Corporation Ltd. (U.P.), but after some years, the son of the informant left the service and the informant started mounting pressure upon the petitioner for return of the money. There is no evidence with regard to taking money by the petitioner from the informant.

Money is said to have been taken in the year 2011, but F.I.R. was lodged after lapse of around 6 years. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27914 of 2017 (2) dt.21-06-2017 3/3 Bhabua (Kaimur) in connection with Ramgarh (Nuaon) P. S. Case No. 81 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) Mishra/- U T