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.
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish