Dismissed

Rajiv Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Jul 2022CR. MISC./23777/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petitioner apprehending arrest for cheating offences under IPC Sections 420/34 involving an unpaid bank loan and guarantee. The petitioner denied accusations that his father sold a vehicle without clearing the loan, suggesting civil recourse. The court refused bail, directing surrender and directing the petitioner to seek regular bail on merits. No separate merits analysis for regular bail wa

What did the court decide?

Bail application refused; petitioner directed to surrender and seek regular bail on merits.

Rajiv Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23777 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-535 Year-2019 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui

¶3

======================================================

¶4

RAJIV KUMAR S/o Mohan Singh R/o village- Mangrar, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui

... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

9 11-07-2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶13

Petitioner apprehends arrest in registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/34 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, father of the petitioner took car loan from the bank in which petitioner was the guarantor and without paying the loan amount the vehicle in question was sold to other person.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner denying the allegation, submits that there is no cheat of paper to show that father of the petitioner has sold his vehicle. More so, if loan has been paid by loanee, the informant may proceed against the petitioner/ guarantor under the provisions of the Debt Recovery Act. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23777 of 2021(9) dt.11-07-2022 2/2

¶17

petitioner has got clean antecedent.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was guarantor of the vehicle of which loan amount had not been paid and the vehicle had also been sold to some other person.

¶19

Considering the specific allegation against the petitioner, his prayer for bail is refused with direction to surrender and seek regular bail which would be considered and disposed of on its own merit without prejudice.

¶20

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶21

shashi/-

Rajiv Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajat Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bachchan Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Ejhar Khan @ Guddu Vs The State of Bihar

Jayant Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Hare Ram Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Ali Husain @ Ali Hasan Vs the State of Bihar