IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40654 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2019 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui ====================================================== 1. Rajeev Ranjan @ Golu @ Rajeev Kumar Yadav S/o Thakur Yadav Resident of Village Barmasia(Oria Rajla),P.S Jhajha 2. Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar S/o Late Ayodhya Yadav Resident of Village- Barmasia (Oria Rajla),P.S.- Jhajha, Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 16-07-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Chakari Police Station Case No. 230 of 2019, dated 28.12.2019, disclosing offences under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that in the year 2017, the co-accused Yugal Yadav, along with his sons, namely, Shyam Kishore Bharti and Rakesh Ranjan, and one Govind Ram allegedly cheated the informant of Rs. 8,00,000/- at the informant’s residence under the pretext of giving government job. When the job was not provided, the informant demanded his money back upon which the accused persons gave life Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40654 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 threats to the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not named in the First Information Report and they have falsely been implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. He next submits that specific allegation is not against the petitioners and the names of the petitioners transpired during course of investigation only because they happens to be nephews of the co- accused Yugal Yadav. He further submits that at the time of alleged occurrence the petitioners were in Delhi for their livelihood. 5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and seriousness of offence and the fact that the petitioners have approached for bail after a delay of about 06 years and the petitioners are having a criminal antecedent of similar nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. ashwani/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T