Radhey Singh @ Yogendra Kr. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41669 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1565 Year- 2016 Thana -SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSIWAN ====================================================== Radhey Singh @ Yogendra Kr., S/o Chhavinath Singh, R/o Village-Marchi, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabua), at present-Patel Nagar, Ward No. 6, P.S.-Bhabua, District-Bhabua.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Jamadar Prasad Kushwaha, R/o VillageKadirganj, P.S-Badhariya, District-Siwan. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Md. Ansarul Haque, APP For the Complainant : Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1565 of 2016 (Tr. No. 1048 of 2017), registered for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The gist of the allegation is that one Rudra Pratap Kushwaha @ Rudal Singh came along with Radhey Singh, the petitioner, to the house of the complainant and on the pretext of providing job in Railway to two persons got Rs. 7,00,000/-, but the accused persons did not either provide

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41669 of 2017 (3) dt.19-12-2017 2/2 the job nor return the money.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not alleged to have received any money from the complainant or any other person. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the case on the allegation that he happens to be the relative and friend of said Rudra Pratap Kushwaha @ Rudal Singh.

Learned Counsel for the complainant, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but he could not be able to show that the petitioner received any amount from the complainant or any other person. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has not received any money from either the complainant or any other person on the pretext of providing job, the provisional bail granted to him vide order, dated 20.09.2017, is, hereby, confirmed. The petitioner, above named, is allowed to be remained on same bail bonds.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Praveen-II/- U T