Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2145/2015rejected

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-26Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2145 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2013 Thana -ATHMALGOLA District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Anil Kumar Son of Veer Bhuwan Narayan Singh Resident of vill+P.OShaistapur,P.S-Athmalgola,Distt.-Patna,Pin-803211 .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shardanand Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 26-03-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 96 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Section 409 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner and his father Veer Bhuwan Narayan Singh persuaded many investors to deposit in the post office of Shaistapur to get good return and thereby both have issued forged pass books to the investors and thereby the father and the son misappropriated and defalcated Rs. 27,46,032/- deposited by different investors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before 20.12.1999, the father of the petitioner Veer Bhuwan Narayan Singh was working and thereafter the petitioner was appointed as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2145 of 2015 (4) dt.26-03-2015 2/2 Assistant Post Master. The main allegation is against the father of the petitioner and a departmental proceeding is also initiated. Charge sheet has already been submitted since the petitioner is in jail therefore, he could not be able to attend the departmental proceeding.

It appears that the petitioner and his father cheated many investors and thereby misappropriated huge amount of Rs. 27,46,032/-, hence I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T