Patna High CourtCR. MISC./80850/2024bail rejected

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-25Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80850 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Singh S/O Shri Raj Kumar Singh R/O Village- Harinarayanpur, P.S- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs.Poonam Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-11-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with B.P. No. 1331 of 2024 arising out of Muzaffarpur Cyber P.S. Case No. 20 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 66(C)/66 (D) of I.T. Act, 2000 lodged on 11.09.2023 by the informant, Bhagya Narayan Singh.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he had gone for withdrawal of the money from the Bank of India ATM counter. After withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- when he tried again, failed. In the meantime, another person came and took him to another ATM Center and in course of the transaction, he changed the ATM Card whereafter, the informant got the information of withdrawal of Rs. 1,15,000/-.This led to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80850 of 2024(2) dt.25-11-2024 2/2 the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has come in the confessional statement of Ranjeet Patel who has narrated that probably this petitioner has done. This led to his implication.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that a perusal of the learned Sessions Judge order would show that the allegation is there against the petitioner of exchanging the ATM Card and withdrawal of the money.

6. Considering the aforesaid submission put forward by the parties as also the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of the same nature, 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