Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2963 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-825 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Son Of Sanjay Yadav Resident Of Village - Nima, Post - Goga, Police Station - Mufassil, District - Gaya ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Niraj Kumar Son Of Gulachand Choudhary Resident Of Village - Bhore, Police Station - Mufassil, District - Gaya 3.

Mahindra Finance Company Through Its Regional Manager Nagmatia Road, Ps- Civil Lines, Dist- Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, Spl. Public Prosecutor For the R. No. 2 :

Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2026 Earlier, the case was referred to mediation center vide order dated 07.11.2025 but as per the Mediator's Report dated 03.12.2025, mediation between the parties has failed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent no. 2 and the State.

3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST, Gaya in ABP No. 104 of 2024 arising out of Mufassil P.S. Case No. 825 of 2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of appellant has been rejected.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2963 of 2024(8) dt.02-04-2026 2/2

4. As per prosecution case, complainant gave cheques of Rs. 3.5 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 3 lacs in cash to the appellant, in lieu of purchasing a tractor but appellant failed to deliver the same to the complainant and gave him a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs, which got dishonoured due to account closure. When complainant and his father went to the house of appellant, to demand their money back, this appellant abused them by caste name and threatened them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. Appellant has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive.

6. Learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the bail application. Appellant is author of cheques which got bounced.

7. Considering nature of accusation and the fact that appellant is author of the cheque which got dishonoured, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned court below and as such, the appeal, which has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail, is hereby rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T