Rajesh Kumar @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8850 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-589 Year-2021 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
RAJESH KUMAR @ CHHOTU Son of Krishna Prasad Yadav Resident of Savliya Gali, P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna 2.
KRISHNA PRASAD YADAV Son of Late Khokha Gope Resident of Savliya Gali, P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna 3.
SHAKUNTALA DEVI Wife of Kishna Prasad Yadav Resident of Savliya Gali, P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna 4.
GURIYA DEVI Wife of Rajesh Kumar @ Chhotu Resident of Savliya Gali, P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Prithvi Nath Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the informant and the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged that these petitioners along with other accused persons cheated the informant of Rs. 20,54,000/- and whenever the informant demanded accounts of certificate with regard to the transactions, they did not produce the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8850 of 2023(7) dt.03-08-2023 2/2 petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. As a matter of fact, the present case is counter blast of Malsalami P. S. Case No. 459 of 2021 which was lodged by the petitioner No. 3 against the informant.
5. However, learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against that these petitioners along with other accused persons cheated the informant of Rs. 20,54,000/-.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is refused.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T