SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 2 January, 2019

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68679 of 2018

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2018 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna

Dinesh Kumar, S/o Shri Sahdeo Prasad @ Sahdeo Sao, Resident of Village-
Sarai, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna.

… … Petitioner/s
The State of Bihar
… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP


4 02-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since

04.08.2018 in a case registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case as per the written report

of Rakesh Ranjan Prasad Sinha submitted to the Station House

Officer of Gandhi Maidan Police Station is to the effect that the

informant is the Cashier in an Auto Mobile dealership namely,

Ashiana Hyundai. The petitioner being a vehicle registration

agent used to work in the dealership of the informant and on his
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68679 of 2018(4) dt.02-01-2019

instruction Rs.13,64,044/- was entrusted to petitioner’s brother,

Ramesh Kumar and one other agent Sunil Kumar, who

misappropriated the said money.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that as per the procedure of registration through the

dealership, the petitioner has not been entrusted to any money.

Moreover, the specific case of the informant is that the money

was entrusted to Ramesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar and hence, no

offence either under Section 406 IPC or under Section 420 IPC

is made out against the petitioner. A statement has been made in

paragraph 3 of the petitioner that the petitioner is not having any

criminal antecedent.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

informant that at the instruction of the petitioner money was

entrusted and he was in league with other accused persons, who

actually misappropriated the money.

Considering the thrust of accusation against

co-accused Ramesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar, coupled with the

statement made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner

is not having any criminal antecedent, let the above named

petitioner be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of

Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68679 of 2018(4) dt.02-01-2019

each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Judge XVII -cum-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XVII, Patna in connection

with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 274 of 2018.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation