Uday Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46331 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-565 Year-2023 Thana- ISLAMPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Uday Kumar Verma Son of Raghunandan Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Ramchandrapur, Behind Ajanta Cinema Bihar Sharif, P.S.- Laheri, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar No.I, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP For the Informant : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-02-2025 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Islampur P.S. Case No. 565 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant given Rs.18,55,000/- to this petitioner to supply fertilizer but neither the fertilizer was supplied nor the money was returned.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46331 of 2024(5) dt.07-02-2025 2/2 implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The petitioner has never taken any loan from the informant and the present case has been lodged only to extract money from the petitioner. The petitioner and informant are retail dealer of fertilizer and the present case has been lodged on false and concocted facts. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter it is purely a civil dispute. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail petition.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the fact that with consent of parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center but the petitioner did not appear, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

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