Indra Bhushan Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49129 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2020 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Indra Bhushan Jha S/O Umesh Chandra Jha @ Umesh Jha R/O Vill and P.O.- Maishan, P.s.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Niranjan Kumar @ Neeraj Kumar S/O Surendra Thakur R/O Vill. and P.O.- Harnahi, P.S.- Baruraj, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-12-2025
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Baruraj Police Station Case No. 100 of 2020, dated 06.06.2020, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341/323/506/406/420/419/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the petitioner used to run the C.S.P. Centre of the Punjab National Bank in the market of one Birendra Singh, having Code No. KOH00823, since 2015, and the petitioner used to open the bank account and
2/4 deposit/withdraw money in the accounts of the customers. In January, 2016, the petitioner hired the informant for the post of Data Entry Operator on the monthly remuneration of Rs. 10,000/-. In the year 2019, the petitioner told the informant that there is a vacancy of fourth grade in Punjab National Bank and he will arrange the job for him if the informant will give him Rs. 1,00,000/-. On the assurance of the petitioner that the said job will be permanent in next three year, the informant paid the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and till that time, Rs. 50,000/- was due to be given by the petitioner as the salary of the informant for five months. It has further been alleged that the petitioner has closed the said C.S.P. Centre after taking money from 30-40 customers. When the informant demanded his money, the petitioner along with 4-5 persons threatened him of dire consequences.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that the entire allegation is baseless and for the work of C.S.P., the petitioner, having no knowledge of computer, entered into an agreement with the informant on 15.02.2017, by which
3/4 the informant was authorized to run the said C.S.P. and taking advantage of the same, the informant misappropriated a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in one more case of similar nature and the allegation in the present First Information Report is serious in nature. He further submits that though the petitioner is named in the First Information Report, lodged on 06.06.2020, he approached the learned District Court in the year 2022 and after rejection of his anticipatory bail application before the learned District Court on 06.01.2023, he approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail on 15.07.2025.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned, and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of similar nature of offence, the allegation levelled by the informant in the present First Information Report is serious in nature and the case is under investigation, wherein the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary based upon the material collected by the police during course of investigation, I
4/4 am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √