Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45929/2022bail rejected

Sudhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-04-04Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45929 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2020 Thana- RAMPUR CHAURAM DistrictJehanabad ====================================================== SUDHIR KUMAR SON OF RAM PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGESHEKHPURA, P.S.- RAMPUR CHAURAM, DISTRICT- ARWAL ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjiv Sharan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Rampur Chauram P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the petitioner duped the innocent villagers belonging to Scheduled Caste, and introduced himself as authorized agent of Anand Auto. He duped them for facilitation of loan. He obtained their signatures on some papers and when the villagers came to know that the loan was sanctioned in their names and it was withdrawn by someone else, they lodged this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45929 of 2022(6) dt.04-04-2023 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent. The case was lodged after 8-9 years and the petitioner had not signed in papers as mentioned in the FIR. On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that a number of witnesses in case diary have supported the prosecution case and have stated that it was the petitioner who on the pretext of facilitation of loan grabbed their hard-earned money. The petitioner is accused in as many as 9 cases of similar nature and he is person of strong criminal antecedent. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned herein above, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Sudha/Sonali U T