Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39010 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-519 Year-2021 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== 1.

Vijay Kumar, S/o Shiv Narayan Prasad Chandrabansi, Resident of MohallaKajipura, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District-Rohtas. 2.

Vikash Kumar, S/o Upendra Ram, Resident of Village- Banjari (Near Durga Mandir), P.S. and District- Rohtas.

3.

Amit Kumar, S/o Murari Prasad, Resident of Village- Bauliya, P.S.- Nauhatta, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Manoj Kumar Gond, S/o Vishwanath Gond, Resident of MohallaSapullahganj, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the O.P. No.2 :

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-10-2025 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned Advocate for the complainant.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 519 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is of defrauding the complainant on the pretext of providing job in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39010 of 2025(4) dt.17-10-2025 2/3 the railways and thereby duping Rs. 5,80,000/-.

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in fact the petitioners are themselves victim of fraud at the hands of Rahul Kumar Singh, Rohit Kumar @ Vikash Kumar and Sagar @ Pritam Yadav who cheated the petitioners by promising to provide Group-D service in Indian Railways. On account of the aforesaid reason, the petitioner no. 3 also lodged an FIR bearing Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 106 of 2021, the copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P/2. It is further submitted that in the afore-noted case, the complainant is also one of the witness. He further submits that the petitioners were preparing for examinations and on account of the illegal offer made by the afore-noted three persons, the petitioners alongwith complainant have paid money, which has been duped by them. It is lastly contended that be that as it may, the petitioners are men of fair antecedent and they undertake before this Court that they will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State and learned Advocate for the O.P. No.2 vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR lodged by the petitioner no. 3 submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39010 of 2025(4) dt.17-10-2025 3/3 they themselves admitted that they have received Rs. 5,80,000/- from the complainant.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the accusation against the petitioners as also the materials suggesting the petitioners are also victim of fraud, for which they have also filed a separate FIR, in which the complainant is also one of the witness, besides their fair antecedent, let the petitioners above named be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Complaint Case No. 519 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U T