Dismissed¶16

Md. Tabrez Alam @ Tabrez Alam v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 May 2026CR. MISC./12393/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Cr. Misc. No. 12393 of 2026, decided 13-05-2026 by Partha Sarthy, J. Regular bail application rejected under sections 420/406 IPC (cheating and criminal breach of trust). Rs. 1,01,898/- allegedly deducted from informant's bank account via Paytm and transferred to five accounts, one in petitioner Md. Tabrez Alam's name; defence of no control over account opened by contractor at Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Custody since 18.8.2025; charge-sheet filed. Liberty to renew bail prayer after one year in custody or framing of charge, whichever is later.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused; application rejected, with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody and after framing of charge, whichever is later. ¶16

Md. Tabrez Alam @ Tabrez Alam Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12393 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2020 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Md. Tabrez Alam @ Tabrez Alam, S/o Salim @ Salim Ansari, R/o VillageChirudih, P.S- Muffasil Dumka, District- Dumka, jharkhand

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶8

5 13-05-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case no.247 of 2020 registered under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that a total of Rs.1,01,898/- was illegally deducted from his savings bank account in the bank. As such the F.I.R.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The F.I.R. was registered against unknown. The false implication of the petitioner was for the reason that the amount deducted from the informant’s bank account through Paytm was transferred to five different accounts, one of which belongs to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had gone to Dadra and Nagar

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12393 of 2026(5) dt.13-05-2026 2/2

¶14

Haveli for search of job as a labourer in thread manufacturing company where the contractor had got an account opened in his name. The petitioner has no control over the said account. No material has transpired in course of investigation to show that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the amount deducted from the account of the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 18.8.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

¶15

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R., the material that has transpired in course of investigation including the fact that out of the total amount of Rs.1,01,898/- which was transferred to five different accounts, one of the account was in the name of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶17

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody and after framing of charge, whichever is later.

¶18

avinash/- U T

¶19

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Md. Tabrez Alam @ Tabrez Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Tabrez Alam @ Tabrez Alam 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

Upendra Nath Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Sahani Murmu @Sohani Murmu Vs The State of Bihar through the Secretary

Hari Nandan Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Kumar Gupta @ Pramod Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Barjesh Kumar Yadav @ Brijesh Kumar yadav @ Brajesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Bhutali Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar