Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57300/2022dismissed

Sonu Kumar Purvey @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-01-24Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57300 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Purvey @ Sonu Kumar S/O Sri Sitaram Purvey Resident of village- Runni Saidpur, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. At present Shakti Nagar, Road No-4, Kurji Balupar, P.S.- Digha, P.O. Sadakat Ashram, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.42(C) of 2021 instituted under Sections 406,417 and 468 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he was a government servant and after retirement, he got the retiral benefits. The present petitioner approached him and asked to invest in the land to get financial benefits. Accepting his version, he started transferring amount in the different accounts of different persons which altogether come to Rs.16,91,000/-. However, later he realized about being duped in the name of selling and purchasing of land.

Subsequently, a 'Panchayati' was held in which the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57300 of 2022(2) dt.24-01-2023 2/2 petitioner accepted on non-judicial stamp that entire amount will be returned to the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner returned Rs.3,91,000/- and a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- was also given by Anand Kumar, which was dishonoured. When the complainant tried to contact the present petitioner, his mobile was switched off. Having left with no alternative, he filed complaint.

Considering the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner of having cheated the complainant of Rs.16,91,000/- in the name of purchase of land, this Court is not inclined to grant him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T