IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82802 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-684 Year-2022 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananjay Kumar Gupta Son of Late Birju Sao @ Birju Prasad @ Birju Prasad Sao @ Birju Saw Resident Of Village- Bela Bajar Ps -Belaganj Dist -Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Satyendra Yadav Son of Raghunandan @ Raghunandan yadav Resident Of Village- Amar Bigha, Ps- Belaganj, Dist- Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP For the Informant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. It is a case of cheque bounce. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this petitioner, along with co-accused Ajit Kumar, took Rs. 70,00,000/- (Seventy lakhs rupees) from the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82802 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026 2/3 informant as consideration money in lieu of executing a land in his favour and later on, refused to execute the land. Thereafter, when the informant asked for his money back, the accused persons issued cheques in his favour which got bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Thus, the accused persons cheated the informant and extorted money from him. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean antecedents. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is author of the cheque which got bounced due to insufficiency of funds and thus, this petitioner cheated the informant and extorted money from him in lieu of executing a land in his favour. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82802 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026 3/3 is rejected. shashank/- (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U T