Avigal Gautam @ Pikku @ Jyoti Kumari @ Abigal Gautam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80750 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2025 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== Avigal Gautam @ Pikku @ Jyoti Kumari @ Abigal Gautam D/O Ramanand Singh Resident of Village - Panchbir, P.S- Sahebpur Kamal, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mrs. Archana Sahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Shivam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-07-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025 registered for offence punishable under Sections 318(4) / 303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The present case came to be registered on the basis of prosecution report of informant Bindu Sharma W/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma. It has been stated that husband of the informant is retired govt. servant and is not able to perform his role of the family matters. It has further been contended that informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80750 of 2025(7) dt.06-07-2026 2/2 herself exercising the responsibility of the family matters. It has further been contended that on 09.05.2025, the informant got updated the account, it was running in the State Bank of India, Municipality Chowk Branch, Begusarai having no. 11082123174. She learnt that a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/-was withdrawn from the account in between 23.02.2025 to 13.04.2025. The informant immediately made a complaint on Helpline no. 1930 and her complaint was registered as 30505250029632. During inquiry, it was revealed that this petitioner, who is tenant in the house of informant, by alluring husband of informant, has transferred money in her bank account and thus, has committed fraud in the account of husband of informant and when informant put pressure on petitioner for returning the alleged amount, she refused to return the money.
4. Considering the nature of accusation and materials that has come during course of investigation against petitioner, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T