Subham Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32881 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2024 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== Subham Sharma son of Krishna Kumar Sharma Village- Housing Board Colony, Ps- Kaar, Dist- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand ) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shruti Kumari Propriter M/S Shree Thakur Sec Auto Mobile VillMithwarliya, PS-Chhapra, Dist- Chhapra,Saran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 345 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with other co-accused person posing as employees of M/s. Sliveline Power Station Pvt. Ltd., fraudulently convinced husband of the informant to invest in an electric scooter distributorship. Relying on their claims, they took a loan of 30 ₹ lakh and transferred Rs. 19,20,500/- (nineteen lakhs twenty

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32881 of 2025(6) dt.24-11-2025 2/3 thousand five hundred rupees only) to the company, but no scooters were ever delivered. Despite multiple follow-ups and legal notices, the company's addresses were found to be invalid, and they continued making false excuses. It is further alleged that informant also incurred heavy financial losses, including showroom rent, while waiting for the promised products. It was later revealed that the accused had defrauded multiple individuals through similar fraudulent distributorship schemes.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that entire allegation of informant as alleged against the petitioner is totally false and fabricated and the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner was representative of the company and except that the petitioner has got no role in that company. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no any connection with the transaction rather the alleged amount was transferred by the informant in the account of company and not in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2025 and has got five

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32881 of 2025(6) dt.24-11-2025 3/3 criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85618 of 2024.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation of cheating against the petitioner along with other co-accused person. It is further submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR as the person who did contact with the informant claiming himself as representative of the E two wheeler company and offered distributorship to the informant. The petitioner bears five criminal antecedents of same nature. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T