Dinesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9074 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -848 Year- 2016 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Dinesh Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Subad Sah, Resident of Village- Nawadih, P.S. Indrapuri, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sasaram Town (Tilauthu) P.S. Case No. 848 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner executed agreement and handed over the truck to the complainant/informant on 13.10.2015 with condition that dues installment before 13.10.2015 will be paid by the petitioner in the Bank and thereafter the complainant has to pay the instilment. The petitioner took Rs. 6,60,000/- from the complainant out of which Rs. 6,55,000/- was through cheque and Rs. 5,000/- was through cash, but the truck was seized by accused nos. 2 & 3 who are Chief Manager and Recovery Officer of State Bank of India, Dehri Branch, as the petitioner did not pay the installment due.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9074 of 2017 (3) dt.07-04-2017 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has paid the installment, but the informant did not pay any installment after taking possession of the truck and thereafter in the month of March the said truck was seized by the Bank Manager and Recovery Officer, it was the fault of the informant, the informant earned from October 2015 till February 2016 but did not pay the installment. During investigation the implication of accused nos. 2 & 3 have not been found true and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Sasaram Town (Tilauthu) P.S. Case No. 848 of 2016 (G.R. No. 1815 of 2016), pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T