Achal Harsh @ Achal Shiva v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63516 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- Banma Itahari District- Saharsa ====================================================== Achal Harsh @ Achal Shiva S/O Late Anil Kumar Verma R/o - Priya Nagar, P.O - Sugma, Panchyat-Jamalpur, P.s - Banma, Itahari, District - Saharsa852201. At Present R/O Santnagar, Gangajala, Ward no. 35, P.S. and Dist.- Saharsa- 852201 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramesh Pandit S/o- Chandeshwari Pandit R/o Vill- Rasalpur TolaHasanpur, Ward no.-13 Block- Banma Itahari PS- Salakhua Dist- Saharsa ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Swami Parth Sarthy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per prosecution case, informant, in the name of medical treatment, gave Rs. 2 lacs in cash and Rs. 6,99,682/- (Rs. Six Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Two Only) through banking mode to the petitioner. It is alleged after receiving total amount of Rs. 8,99,682/- (Rs. Eight Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Two Only) from the informant, this petitioner did not pay for the treatment of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63516 of 2025(4) dt.09-12-2025 2/2 informant rather he used the money for his personal needs, thus, committing fraud with the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. As a matter of fact, entire amount, as alleged in the F.I.R., has already been paid by the petitioner to one Ganesh Pandit, who is own brother of the informant and as such, petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to informant.

5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner has returned only Rs. 2,07,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Seven Thousand Only) into his and his brother's bank accounts through UPI mode on different dates.

6. Considering the fact that petitioner has returned only Rs. 2,07,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Seven Thousand Only) out of total Rs. 6,99,682/- (Rs. Six Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Two Only), which was paid to the petitioner through banking mode, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.

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