The person alleged of taking huge amounts from the people in the name of giving jobs in the Civil Court granted bail: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22720 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 50 Year 2019 Thana BEGUSARAI TOWN District Begusarai Dharam Sah @ Dharm Sah Son of Sri Shyam Sah Male aged about 35 years Resident of Village Bishnupur Azadchowk Near Nav Yukub Durga Asthan Ward No.42 Post Mirzapur Bandaur PS Town District Begusarai at present resident of Village Chanakya Nagar PO Mirzapur Banduar Ward No.39 PS Town District Begusarai The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. Arun Kumar with Mr. Deepak Kumar Advocates Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh APP For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar along with Mr. Deepak Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Town PS Case No. 50 of 2019 dated 24.01.2019 instituted under Sections 419 420 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had introduced the informant to co accused Manisha Kumari and her Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22720 dt.05 08 2021 husband who had taken Rs. 5 lakhs from her in the presence of the petitioner for getting her grandson a job in the Civil Court at Khagaria as co accused Manisha Kumari was introduced as a Peshkar in the Civil Courts Khagaria but the said did not materialize. It has further been alleged that the petitioner had taken her to the Corporation Bank from where Rs. 49 000 was withdrawn by her and given to him. Further allegation is that the co accused had given copy of her I Card PAN Card and Aadhar Card to the informant and when she went to ask for money she was beaten and abused 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one daughter Putul Devi of the informant was working as a maid in the house of co accused Manisha Kumari and Manisha Kumari lives in the same building where the petitioner is also a tenant and due to marriage of Babita Devi’s son who is another daughter of the informant they had taken jewellery worth Rs 1 15 912 from the jewellery shop of the petitioner and still an outstanding demand of Rs. 8 912 remains which was not being paid due to which he has been implicated. It was submitted that even in the FIR the allegation of giving money is to co accused Manisha Kumari and not the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation it has come that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22720 dt.05 08 2021 informant and her two daughters are in the habit of lodging such false cases as earlier also they had implicated another person on the charge of having established physical relationship and taking money for getting her job in the Block office. It was submitted that there is no occasion for the petitioner to be involved in the transaction and most importantly the money paid to him was in lieu of the ornaments which was purchased from his shop by the informant side in support of which learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to copy of the bill dated 01.03.2018 which has been annexed as Annexure A to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in the name of Babita Devi who is the daughter of the informant in which the alleged Rs. 49 000 paid to the petitioner from Corporation Bank has been shown as part payment for the jewellery and still an outstanding amount of Rs. 8 912 remains. Learned counsel submitted that co accused Bhola Jha whose wife is alleged to have been clerk in the Civil Court Khagaria has been granted anticipatory bail by judgment and order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 316920 and the said lady Manisha Kumari has also been granted anticipatory bail by a co ordinate Bench by order dated 19.05.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 314920 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22720 dt.05 08 2021 6. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution story. However it was submitted that it has come that there was marriage of grandson of the informant i.e. son of Babita Devi and the parties are tenants of a common landlord 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in view of the petitioner not being the person who had promised any job for the grandson of the informant as also indication that he being the owner of a jewellery shop there was some transaction between the parties and other co accused who were the persons and had assured the job being granted pre arrest bail the Court is inclined to allow the prayer 8. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Begusarai in Town PS Case No. 50 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner andthat the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22720 dt.05 08 2021 shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds 9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 10. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The Petitioner was alleged for taking huge amounts from the informant in the name of giving a job in the Civil Court which turned out to be false and was done by the co-accused. The Court granted bail to the petitioner for not being involved fully in the case. The petition was disposed of on the terms and conditions by the court. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter of Dharam Sah v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2279 of 2020]. 
The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with a case instituted under Sections 419, 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner had introduced the informant to co-accused Manisha Kumari and her husband, who had taken Rs. 5 lakhs from her in the presence of the petitioner for getting her grandson a job in the Civil Court at Khagaria as co-accused Manisha Kumari was introduced as a Peshkar in the Civil Courts, Khagaria, but the said did not materialize. It was also alleged that the petitioner took add on Rs. 49,000 from them at Bank. On asking for the money back and fulfillment of the commitment the informant was beaten and abused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one daughter Putul Devi of the informant was working as a maid in the house of co-accused Manisha Kumari and Manisha Kumari lives in the same building where the petitioner is also a tenant and due to the marriage of Babita Devi’s son, who is another daughter of the informant, they had taken jewelry worth Rs. 1,15,912/- from the jewelry shop of the petitioner and still an outstanding demand of Rs. 8,912/- remains, which was not being paid due to which he has been implicated. It was submitted that even in the FIR, the allegation of giving money is to co-accused Manisha Kumari and not the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that during investigation it has come that the informant and her two daughters are in the habit of lodging such false cases, as earlier also they had implicated another person on the charge of having established physical relationship and taking money for getting her job in the Block office.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna decided,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the petitioner not being the person who had promised any job for the grandson of the informant as also indication that he being the owner of a jewelry shop, there was some transaction between the parties and other co-accused who were the persons and had assured the job, being granted pre-arrest bail, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer.” The bail was hence granted and the petition was disposed of in the terms mentioned in the judgment.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with a case instituted under Sections 419, 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner had introduced the informant to co-accused Manisha Kumari and her husband, who had taken Rs. 5 lakhs from her in the presence of the petitioner for getting her grandson a job in the Civil Court at Khagaria as co-accused Manisha Kumari was introduced as a Peshkar in the Civil Courts, Khagaria, but the said did not materialize. It was also alleged that the petitioner took add on Rs. 49,000 from them at Bank. On asking for the money back and fulfillment of the commitment the informant was beaten and abused. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one daughter Putul Devi of the informant was working as a maid in the house of co-accused Manisha Kumari and Manisha Kumari lives in the same building where the petitioner is also a tenant and due to the marriage of Babita Devi’s son, who is another daughter of the informant, they had taken jewelry worth Rs. 1,15,912/- from the jewelry shop of the petitioner and still an outstanding demand of Rs. 8,912/- remains, which was not being paid due to which he has been implicated. It was submitted that even in the FIR, the allegation of giving money is to co-accused Manisha Kumari and not the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that during investigation it has come that the informant and her two daughters are in the habit of lodging such false cases, as earlier also they had implicated another person on the charge of having established physical relationship and taking money for getting her job in the Block office.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna decided,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the petitioner not being the person who had promised any job for the grandson of the informant as also indication that he being the owner of a jewelry shop, there was some transaction between the parties and other co-accused who were the persons and had assured the job, being granted pre-arrest bail, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer.” The bail was hence granted and the petition was disposed of in the terms mentioned in the judgment.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one daughter Putul Devi of the informant was working as a maid in the house of co-accused Manisha Kumari and Manisha Kumari lives in the same building where the petitioner is also a tenant and due to the marriage of Babita Devi’s son, who is another daughter of the informant, they had taken jewelry worth Rs. 1,15,912/- from the jewelry shop of the petitioner and still an outstanding demand of Rs. 8,912/- remains, which was not being paid due to which he has been implicated. It was submitted that even in the FIR, the allegation of giving money is to co-accused Manisha Kumari and not the petitioner. 
Learned counsel submitted that during investigation it has come that the informant and her two daughters are in the habit of lodging such false cases, as earlier also they had implicated another person on the charge of having established physical relationship and taking money for getting her job in the Block office.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna decided,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the petitioner not being the person who had promised any job for the grandson of the informant as also indication that he being the owner of a jewelry shop, there was some transaction between the parties and other co-accused who were the persons and had assured the job, being granted pre-arrest bail, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer.” The bail was hence granted and the petition was disposed of in the terms mentioned in the judgment.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 Learned counsel submitted that during investigation it has come that the informant and her two daughters are in the habit of lodging such false cases, as earlier also they had implicated another person on the charge of having established physical relationship and taking money for getting her job in the Block office. 
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna decided,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the petitioner not being the person who had promised any job for the grandson of the informant as also indication that he being the owner of a jewelry shop, there was some transaction between the parties and other co-accused who were the persons and had assured the job, being granted pre-arrest bail, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer.” The bail was hence granted and the petition was disposed of in the terms mentioned in the judgment.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Hon’ble High Court of Patna decided,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the petitioner not being the person who had promised any job for the grandson of the informant as also indication that he being the owner of a jewelry shop, there was some transaction between the parties and other co-accused who were the persons and had assured the job, being granted pre-arrest bail, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer.” The bail was hence granted and the petition was disposed of in the terms mentioned in the judgment.