Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26997 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-584 Year-2023 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== Sanjeev kumar S/o Lal Babu Rai R/o Village- Narikhurd (Naritara), P.S.- Tisiautta, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Sanjib Kumar S/o Late Gaya Prasad Singh R/o Village- Narikhurd, P.S.- Tisiautta, District- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajiv Nayan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner fraudulently received cheque of Rs. 7,33,091/- issued in the name of the informant and got it deposited in his account. Thereafter, cheque amount, which was PF money of the informant, was credited to the account of the petitioner. It is further alleged that when the informant approached the petitioner, he promised to return the money but did not return the same.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph 9 of the bail petition, wherein it has been averred that it is true that cheque has been received by father of the petitioner since name of informant and petitioner are same and due to mistake he deposited the cheque in his account and that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26997 of 2025(5) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 was not intentional. However, petitioner is ready to refund the money to the informant. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that though name of petitioner and informant are same but their parentage are different, still intentionally petitioner received that cheque and deposited it in his account. Petitioner has not returned the proceeds of cheque to the informant till date. Counsel for petitioner did not appear before the Mediator as per Mediator's Report dated 22.7.2025.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and conduct of the petitioner, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T