Ani Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51609 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -948 Year- 2014 Thana -NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictNALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Ani Kumar, Son of Shri Umesh Mahto, Resident of Village- Fazilapur, P.S.- Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Kumar @ Anil Kumar, Son of Late Harihar Prasad, Resident of Village- Kishan Colony Anisabad, P.S.- Phoolwari Sharif, DistrictPatna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Asharaf Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 948C of 2014, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accusation is that accused Karunanidhi used to do job with the complainant Sunil Kumar @ Anil Kumar at Pan Card Club Limited. In that course, accused Karunanidhi asked the complainant Sunil Kumar to give Rs. 4,60,000/- for job. The complainant accordingly deposited Rs. 1,30,000/- in the account of accused Karunanidhi. Thereafter, accused Karunanidhi and his brother-in-law petitioner came at the house of the complainant and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51609 of 2016 (5) dt.09-01-2017 2/3 made demand of Rs. 70,000/- more and asked to give educational certificate. The complainant handed over educational certificate and also deposited Rs. 66,000/- in the account of accused Karunanidhi. On 27.04.2014, accused Karunanidhi and his brother-in-law petitioner made demand of remaining cash Rs. 2,64,000/- for appointment letter then complainant managed to said amount to his brother-in-law and handed over to accused Karunanidhi. In spite of that appointment letter was not handed over to the complainant then he made query from Karunanidhi then he assured that if the appointment letter would not be received then he will return the said money, but in spite of several requests neither the appointment letter nor the money was handed over to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is brother-in-law of accused Karunanidhi and due to that reason he has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that it would appear from the F.I.R. that the amount was not deposited in the account of the petitioner rather it was deposited in the account of Karunanidhi for providing the job. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51609 of 2016 (5) dt.09-01-2017 3/3 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in connection with Complaint Case No.948C of 2014, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T