Prashant Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35413 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2020 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Prashant Kumar Singh Son Of Krishnadev Singh @ Krishnadevi Singh Village- Shivpuri Ward No. 09, Behind Bsnl Tower, Ps- Araria, Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Nandlal Choudhry S/o- Late Kailu Choudhry R/o Village Kasimpur POGhordaur, at present residing at Ranginia PS- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, DistSaharsa ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Rajiv Nayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar, A.P.P.

Mr. SN Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and opposite party no.2 .

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

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant was in need of assistant for his petrol pump godown, so he appointed the petitioner. With passage of time, petitioner became well wisher of informant's family. Informant in trust started sending money to the petitioner for construction work in Delhi and Patna. During transaction, Rs. 15 lacs was given to the petitioner and Rs.2 lacs was given to co-accused Suraj Sharma. It is alleged that the petitioner thus cheated Rs.17 lacs from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35413 of 2024(5) dt.24-09-2024 2/2 informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner was the assistant of the informant and he took money for the informant for going to Patna and Delhi for work of the informant. The same does not come within section 406 and 420 of the IPC. He submits that the matter is out and out a civil dispute. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the entire money had been transferred in the bank account of the petitioner which has come during investigation as mentioned in paragraph 68 of the case diary which shows that the petitioner has misappropriated huge amount of Rs.17 lacs of the informant.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U T