Ramanand Kumar Bhokta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74398 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2020 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Ramanand Kumar Bhokta S/o- Dhirendra Kumar Bhokta R/o- Sheetal Kundi PS-Palojori Deoghar, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Jagbandhu Prasad Mandal S/o- Sitaram Mandal Village- Simria W.No-3, PsTriveniganj Dist- Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 198 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable u/s 420,406 of the IPC and 66(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2020.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he fraudulently withdrawn Rs. 61,800/- from the bank account of the informant.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to village

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74398 of 2024(2) dt.28-10-2024 2/2 politics. It is submitted that petitioner stays outside the village due to his employment and comes home occasionally. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that mobile number used for receiving the said amount was owned by the petitioner.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact the petitioner is the owner of the mobile number used in this incident, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T