Dharam Sah @ Dharm Sah vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3974 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2279 of 2020
  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.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Arun Kumar, with
                                  Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates
 For the State           :        Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP

====================================================== 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 Prosecutor (hereinafter referred

to as the 'APP') for 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

Code.

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.2279 of 2020 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withdrawn by her and given to him.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.2279 of 2020 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. 31691 of 2020

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. 31493 of 2020.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2279 of 2020 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, (i) that one of the bailors

shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2279 of 2020 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

petitioner.

                     10.      The    petition     stands      disposed        of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.



                                                (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)


P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T