The Court is inclined to allow the prayer for bail to the petitioner after being apprehended under Sections 419, 420, 406, and 120B IPC: 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 It has further been alleged that the petitioner had taken her to the Corporation Bank from where Rs. 49 000 was withdrawn by her and given to him.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 taken into custody under Section 419 IPC, “Punishment for cheating by personation”, section 420 “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”, section 406, “Punishment for criminal breach of trust” and section 120B IPC, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”. This is in connection with Town PS Case No. 50 of 2019 dated 24.01.2019. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 5th of August 2021 in the case of Dharam Sah @ Dharm Sah versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.19508 of 2021, Mr. Arun Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh represented as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner made connections between the informant and co-accused and her husband, they had taken Rs. 5 lakhs from the informant for getting a job for the informant’s grandson in the civil court which happened in the presence of the petitioner however the same did not materialize, further the petitioner took the informant to a bank and made her deposit Rs. 49,000 and took the money, the co-accused refused to return the money and instead gave her one card, PAN card, Aadhar, etc and also abused the informant. According to the counsel for the petitioners, he held that the daughter of the informant was also working as a maid in the co-accused household, the petitioner also resided in the same building, the grandson of the informant was getting married and they had taken jewelry worth Rs. 1,15,912 from the shop owned by the petitioner and some amount is yet to be paid, according to the FIR the money was given to the co-accused and not the petitioner, after investigation the informant’s family has a history of lodging false cases. Therefore, the petitioner is not guilty under the law because the money paid to him was due to the ornaments which he sold in his shop and handed over the required documents regarding the payments to the court as evidence, the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner cannot be held in custody any longer The Additional Public Prosecutor held that according to the witnesses they have supported the story laid down by the prosecutor however it is not controverted that due to the informant’s grandson‘s marriage they had purchased the gold and the due amount was remaining, and the parties are tenants of a common landlord. The court after considering the facts and circumstances of this present case held that the petitioner was not the one who promised the job for the informant’s grandson and the documents prove that he was the owner of the jewelry shop and the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail and therefore the Court is inclined to allow the prayer by giving bail for the same.