Bikram Kumar @ Vikram Kumar @ Vikram Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49711 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2025 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar ====================================================== 1.

Bikram Kumar @ Vikram Kumar @ Vikram Ram Son of Nathuni Ram Resident of Village- Kasturiya, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar 2.

Nathuni Ram Son of Brahmdeo Resident of Village- Kasturiya, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Learend counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that the accused persons including the petitioners contacted him for providing labour for working in Gujarat and others States of India on payment basis, further the accused persons on pretext of shortage of fund even took Rs. 2,50,000/- from him, further informant supplied the labour, but after completion of work the payment of Rs. 16, 80,000/- was not paid and in lieu thereof two cheques were issued by the accused persons which on presentation for encashment bounced and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49711 of 2026(3) dt.29-07-2026 2/2 when informant demanded his money, the accused persons abused and assaulted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the dispute is purely civil to which a criminal colour has been given, it is fairly submitted that petitioners have been granted the privilege of police bail, as such, presently the petitioners do not have apprehension of arrest thus seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to the petitioners to file afresh, if need arises.

4. Permission is accorded.

5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail is withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) nitesh/- U T