Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78474/2024bail rejected

Rajan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-13Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78474 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2024 Thana- NAUGACHIA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Rajan Singh Son of Suresh Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Madaruni, Ward No. 6, P.S- Rangra, District- Bhagalpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 13-11-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Naugachia P.S. Case No. 154 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 379 & 411 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 08.05.2024 by the informant, Reena Khatoon.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that she had gone to the market for withdrawal of money and as she tried to withdraw the same, the ATM Card got stuck and a person standing behind her on the pretext of help, changed her ATM Card. When she found that her ATM Card has been changed, immediately took the help of police and the petitioner was caught in another ATM center, Rs. 8000/- was debited from her bank account. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78474 of 2024(2) dt.13-11-2024 2/2 nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession, he had gone to withdraw the amount, an altercation took place which led to his implication.

5. Learned APP has taken this Court to different paragraphs to show that the FIR clearly show that the petitioner in the garb of help, changed the ATM Card and had also withdrawn Rs. 8000/-. He has also pointed out that by way of supplementary affidavit that the petitioner has criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the aforesaid submission put forward by the parties as also the allegation that has come in the FIR coupled with the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of different sections of NDPS Act, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T