Vijay Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68034 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2020 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Sanjiv Kumar @ Pappu Son of Lal Bahadur Singh Resident of Village - Tajan Bigha, P.s.- Chauram, Distt.- Arwal, Presently residing at Flat No.1507, Winge Poonam Estate Chester - 1, Near Balaji Hotel, Shanti Pan Mira Road, East Mira Bhayander Thave Maharastra - 401107 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Lakshman Kumar Son of Late Umesh Ram Director of Coaching, Mohalla - Bhagat Singh , P.S.- Jahanabad Nagar, P.O. and Distt.- Jehanabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate :

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

Mr.Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, this petitioner along with other co-accused persons has committed fraud by taking Rs. 12 lacs from the informant for procuring employment in Military Engineering Services from the students of informant's coaching institute.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner has neither taken any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68034 of 2021(4) dt.18-10-2022 2/2 money from the informant nor any candidate has given any amount to the petitioner and so question of cheating does not arise. Further perusal of FIR reveals that it was informant who had collected money from the candidates and as such petitioner cannot be said to be involved. Moreover, there is no evidence or any chit or paper to show any payment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail application submitting that it is a case of forgery and cheating.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Jehanabad P. S. Case No. 83 of 2020, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) navya/- U T