Sandeep Kumar @ Santu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49684 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2348 Year-2019 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANTU Son of Arun Mahto R/O village - Makanpur, P.S.- Noorsarai, District - Nalanda (Biharsharif) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subodh Kumar,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Informant and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2348(c) of 2019 for the offence registered under Sections 323, 379, 386, 420, 504, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the FIR, the petitioner lured Mamta Devi on the pretext of providing job to his son at Delhi and took him to the accused no. 2, namely, Ashutosh Chandra Asthana, who after taking examination promised a job in Income Tax Department and on the said pretext, the accused persons took ten lakhs from the informant/complainant. As no job was provided, upon pressure, Ashutosh Chandra Asthana issued cheque of Rs. 10

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49684 of 2022(2) dt.10-01-2023 2/2 lakhs which ultimately bounced. Hence, the complaint was lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount was taken by the accused no. 2, Ashutosh Chandra Asthana and he do not have any role to play.

Learned counsel for the informant as also learned APP submitted that the petitioner was the person who lured the informant/complainant and took her to Delhi which led to the aforesaid payment of amount and he cannot escape from the responsibility.

This Court finds force in the submission put forward by the learned counsel for the informant as also learned APP, this Court is not inclined to grant him relief, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/Neha/- U T