Nand Bhushan @ Nandan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88178 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2023 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Nand Bhushan @ Nandan S/O Mani Bhushan Sinha @ Mani Bhushan Mohalla- Ward No 34 Dmch Staff Colony, Allalpatti, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Rahul Ranjan S/O Navin Kumar Mishra R/O Vill.- Balbhadarpur, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Kedar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.

Mr. Saurav Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 504, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, informant used to come to Abhishek Kumar Sinha's medicine shop and his office regularly. After sometime, accused told him that he was involved in the business medicine supply and have got a tender for supply of electronic goods to D.M.C.H., Darbhanga and others. Informant should invest money for this supply work. He further alleged that petitioner took the informant in confidence and started business with them and informant gave approximate Rs. 39,00,000/- to the petitioner for business. After some time, informant came to know that petitioner and other accused persons cheated him in the name of business whereas there is no such business at all, and he never got anything in return from the business.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88178 of 2024(3) dt.05-03-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. There is only general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act has been alleged against him. Learned counsel submits that save and except suspicion, there is no other direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the occurrence. Charge sheet has already been submitted. Petitioner is in custody since 25.9.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the State and informant oppose the prayer for bail. They submit that the petitioner is habitual offender and he has got two other criminal antecedents of similar nature.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation and the criminal antecedents, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T