Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36861 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2020 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== SONU KUMAR SON OF SATYA NARAYAN SAHANI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. BISHUNPUR PATTI, PS- SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICTMUZAFFARPUR . ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 01-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceeding. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner is said to have exchanged the ATM card of the informant in the Kiosk and was apprehended in course of escaping.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36861 of 2020(3) dt.01-03-2021 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. It is further submitted that Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not being attracted against the petitioner because no cheating was held rather the fact is that on maintaining row at ATM Kiosk a hot exchange was made in between the parties and the informant has lodged this false and frivolous case against the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 17.06.2020. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T