Keshaw Kumar Sahni @ Keshaw Sahni And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5640 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -318 Year- 2014 Thana -SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Keshaw Kumar Sahni @ Keshaw Sahni

2. Krishna Kumar @ Kishan Sahni @ Krishna Sahni Both Son of Dev Narayan Sahni

3. Dev Narayan Sahni, Son of Late Ram Parkash Sahni All residents of Village- Chandauli, P.S.- Ujjiarur, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Deepak Kumar Rai s/o Maheshwar Roy, r/v - Harpur Jai Ram, P.s. Muffasil, Distt - Samastipur.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Kumar Uday Pratap (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-06-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 318/14 (G.R. No. 2188/14), registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant Deepak Kumar Rai filed a complaint case alleging therein that the petitioners assured him to provide a job in F.C.I. and for that according to the direction of the petitioners he deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 13,000/- in S.B. account no. 4705001500003153 of P.N.B branch Samastipur on 04.10.2013 and P.N.B account no.

0586000100784588

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5640 of 2016 (3) dt.28-06-2016 2/3 respectively. The complainant gave Rs. 1,87,000/- in cash to the petitioner in presence of Maninder Kumar Jha. It is submitted that the appointment letter was handed over to the petitioners, but the same was forged and the informant did not get any job in F.C.I.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is false and concocted. The petitioner had not received any single farthing. The accounts number does not belong to the petitioner.

On the other hand learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that for illegal gain a forged agreement was said to have been arrived at between the petitioners and the informant. Petitioners denied to have received any money from the informant.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioners abovenamed, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5640 of 2016 (3) dt.28-06-2016 3/3 Samastipur in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 318/14 (G.R. No. 2188/14), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T