Guddu Pandey @ Niraj Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26854 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Sheohar ====================================================== GUDDU PANDEY @ NIRAJ PANDEY S/O BACHCHA PANDEY @ BACCHA PANDEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAUD CHAPRA, WARD NO-22, NAGAR PARISHAD, SHEOHAR, P. S.-SHEOHAR, DISTRICTSHEOHAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

VEENA DEVI W/O SUNIL KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAUD CHAPRA, WARD NO-22, NAGAR PARISHAD, SHEOHAR, P. S.- SHEOHAR, DISTRICT-SHEOHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-09-2025 Heard Mrs. Madhubala Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sheohar Complaint Case No. 20 of 2024 for the offence under sections 323, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code lodged by the informant, Veena Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the lady alleged that she was in need of money for starting her own business, met the petitioner who ask her to bring nineteen more women so that the loan is sanctioned from Kotak Mahindra Bank. Accordingly, the Bank account was opened, the document handed over to the

2/4 petitioner and later, it was informed that the loan has been sanctioned. Later, he asked for the password, provided, but no money was received and according to the bank, the money was transferred. When she updated her bank account, it was found that the entire amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner, Guddu Pandey. Feeling cheated, confronted, she was assaulted on her head and when the husband came to the rescue, got his hand injured. This led to the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under confusion, the transaction took place, he is ready to return the amount (Rs. 39,000/-) and further, the submission is that without accepting the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition in view of the fact that the informant's side has alleged injuries, the petitioner on its own would like to contribute Rs. 5,000 towards the medical assistance of the injured through Demand Draft issued by the local State Bank of India branch to be submitted before the 'NAZARAT' of concerned Court to be handed over to the informant after checking the credentials.

5. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that with the clear intention to cheat the loan amount was transferred in his own account.

3/4

6. Though allegation is there, the petitioner will face the music, for the present, he is ready to pay back the entire amount of Rs. 39,000/-, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be paid by Demand Draft of local State Bank of India to be submitted to the Trial Court.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Sheohar in connection with Sheohar Complaint Case No. 20 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

4/4 (iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark his attendance;

(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T