Dismissed¶21

Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC19 Mar 2024CR. MISC./1004/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Crl. Misc. No.1004 of 2024, dt. 19-03-2024, Partha Sarthy, J — Regular bail REJECTED in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.596 of 2022 (Sections 420, 379 IPC) — ATM-fraud case: Rs.1,10,000/- debited from informant's mother's account on 16.10.2022; Rs. 25,000/- traced to petitioner's account per investigation/Annexure-2 — Petitioner (labourer, no antecedent) in custody since 3.10.2023 — Renewal of bail prayer permitted after framing of charge.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew prayer for bail after framing of charge ¶21

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1004 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-596 Year-2022 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

RAHUL KUMAR Son of Chhote Pd. Gupta Resident of Village-Lehsuni Karai, PS-Masaurhi, District-Patna (Bihar)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 19-03-2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶15

grant of regular bail in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case no.596 of 2022, registered under sections 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that on 16.10.2022, while she was using the ATM, the transaction did not go through because there was some defect in the digits 8 and 0. One unknown accused person reached there. It subsequently transpired that Rs.1,10,000/- had been debited from the account of the informant’s mother.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The cause of implication in course of investigation according to the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1004 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2024 2/3

¶19

prosecution is that allegedly a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was transferred from the informant’s mother’s account to the account of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner works as a labourer and the said amount was transferred in his account for his work. The petitioner is in custody since 3.10.2023 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶20

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that in course of investigation it was transpired that on the date of occurrence ie 16.10.2022, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was transferred from the account of mother of the informant and was credited in the account of the petitioner. This allegation is also substantiated from the statement of the petitioner’s account brought on record as Annexure-2 to the petition.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation against the petitioner including the part of the amount debited from the account of the informant’s mother having been found to be credited in the petitioner’s account, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶22

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1004 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2024 3/3

¶24

prayer for bail after framing of charge.

¶25

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶26

Shiv/-

¶27

U T

Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kameshwari Devi Vs Pramod Jha

Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Udgar Mehta @ Ramudgar Mehta Vs The State of Bihar

Ranvir Kumar @ C .D . @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar