Md. Saifula @ Md. Saifulla v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76628 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2024 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== 1.
Md. Saifula @ Md. Saifulla Son of Sirajuddin Resident of Garad Tola, Pranpur, PS- Amdabad, Distt.- Katihar 2.
Nujhat Banu @ Nijhat Banu Wife of Md. Saifula @ Md. Saifulla Resident of Garad Tola, Pranpur, PS- Amdabad, Distt.- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Vimal Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Amdabad P.S. Case No. 143 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420/34 of the IPC.
3. The petitioners introduced themselves as agents of Prayag Infotech Hi-Rise Ltd. They induced the informant to invest in that company. When the informant expressed his suspicion, the petitioners assured him that, in case the company failed to make the payment of matured amount to the informant, they would repay the invested amount from their own funds. On the assurance of the petitioners, the informant invested his hardearned money. However, the petitioners misappropriated that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76628 of 2024(12) dt.04-11-2025 2/2 money and did not return it to the informant.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the status of the petitioners is merely that of agents and they have deposited the collected money.
5. Mr. Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioners have not only cheated the informant but also a number of persons from the locality.
6. The impugned order shows that during investigation, it came to light that several co-villagers, such as Farida Khatoon, Md. Samir, and Md. Jakir, etc., altogether 41 persons, had given money amounting to Rs. 18,34,850/- to the petitioners, to which they had misappropriated.
7. In my view, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T