Rajeev Kumar @ Santu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49440 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2023 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== RAJEEV KUMAR @ SANTU KUMAR S/O SAJJAN DAS R/O VILLAGEPANDUE MATHIYA, P.S- PARASBIGHA, DISTT.- JEHANABAD. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

LALAN DAS S/O LATE BHUNNA DAS R/O VILLAGE- GANNU BIGHA, P.S- CHAKAND, DISTT.- GAYA.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nityanand Neeraj, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-08-2024 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 210 of 2023 for the offence registered under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 16.09.2023 by the informant Lallan Das.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the petitioner, who is the relative lured him to pay Rs.6,00,000/- and he will be provided a Government job. Falling into his trap, the payment was made. In that background, the payments were made in the installments, but as the petitioner do not have any such power to provide Government

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49440 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 2/2 job neither any appointment letter came nor the money returned. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only Rs. 20,000/- was given through Google Pay which he has returned and nothing remains.

5. Learned APP for the State, Mr. Jitendra Kumar, on the other hand submits that it is not a simple case of money transaction rather the petitioner with complete knowledge of being cheating the informant as he has no such authority to provide a Government job to anyone much less the informant, lured him and coughed him to make payment. As he himself admits that Rs. 20,000 was transferred through Google Pay, allegation has already been accepted.

6. Taking into account the aforesaid submission as also the submissions put forward by learned APP, no case of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordinlgy, the present application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

7. The petitioner is well advised to surrender and pray from there.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T