Brajesh Kumar Ojha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36521 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2017 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Brajesh Kumar Ojha S/o Surendra Nath Ojha R/o - Gadhariya, Near Shiv Mandir, P.S - Shikraul, District -Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Kumari Alpana Bharti D/O Sanjay Kumar R/O Mithila Colony, Ganga Nagar, West of Nursary, nasarigang P.O. Batagang P.S. Danapur District Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP For the informant :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Danapur P.S. Case No. 420 of 2017 registered under Sections-406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, on a call received by the informant, she deposited Rs. 11,500/- in the account of Principal of Training College through the account of another person and when she enquired the mobile number, the same was found to be of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36521 of 2025(4) dt.25-11-2025 2/2 petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not known to the informant personally or professionally. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner has ever contacted the informant or demanded any money from her. The mobile Number 8227865835 from which, call is said to have been made to the informant, does not belong to the petitioner.
5. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the State as well as the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioner has got three antecedents of similar nature. He is a habitual offender.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T