Anoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44792 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2024 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.

Anoj Kumar Son of Bhola Yadav @ Bhola Prasad Yadav R/o vill Madhopur, P S - Asarganj, District Munger 2.

Shambhu Kumar Yadav Son of Bhola Yadav @ Bhola Prasad Yadav R/o vill Madhopur, P S - Asarganj, District Munger 3.

Bikram Kumar @ Bikram Yadav Son of Bhola Yadav @ Bhola Prasad Yadav R/o vill Madhopur, P S - Asarganj, District Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Nilesh Kumar S/O- Sajan Prasad Singh R/O- Bhikhudra PS- Sultanganj Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Saurabh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 49 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had taken ₹8,00,000/- at the pretext of providing Group-D job in the Railway. It is further alleged that the accused persons fraudulently obtained an appointment letter, said to be issued by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44792 of 2025(4) dt.10-12-2025 2/2 Eastern Railway, Kolkata. Neither did the accused persons provide any job nor did they return the money.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, the informant himself had taken money from the petitioners to which he didn't return and for that, the petitioners have filed complaint case against the informant.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the complaint case was filed after three months of the present case. Not only he took money but also handed over the joining letter to the informant. Forged medical was also done. Later on, the informant came to know that it was forged joining letter.

6. The complaint petition, filed by the petitioners, is subsequent to lodging of the present FIR.

7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioners don't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T