Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36093 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1358 Year-2023 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== Ajay Kumar S/o- Late Panna Lal Singh Resident of village- Jasauli P.s. Nemdarganj (Akbarpur) District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Gunja Kumari D/o- Baijnath Singh Moh- Malgodam Chhay Road Nawada Ps- Town Dist- Nawada ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1358 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the IPC.
3. As per the allegation, after receiving Rs. 1,50,000 as consideration money in lieu of the transfer of land by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, he neither returned the money nor executed the sale deed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It has further been submitted that no chit of paper regarding the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36093 of 2025(4) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 payment of the amount has been produced by the informant.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. The impugned order shows that the petitioner assured to return the money, but even after several attempts, he could not pay that amount. From perusal of order dated 03-92025, passed by the co-ordinate Bench, it appears that the petitioner was ready to return the balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh within a period of four weeks, but even after lapse of near about eight weeks, that amount has not been given to the informant.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T