Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4751 of 2022 Arising Out of Case No.-1106 Year-2019 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== VINOD KUMAR @ BINOD KUMAR S/o Shiov Dhani Singh R/o VillageEchaw, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Prahlad Prasad Kaishyap S/o Late Ramji Prasad Resident of VillageProfessor Colony, Ward No.4, Bhabua, P.S.- Bhabua, District-Kaimur at Bhabua.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, on the assurance of this petitioner complainant invested money in Mega Mold India Ltd. or Promtech Infratech Ltd. (Icore) and Icore Jewelry and James Pvt. Ltd but the Company failed to give the maturity amount. It is further alleged that the petitioner entered into an agreement that if the company fails to pay maturity amount he will pay the amount to the complainant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4751 of 2022(4) dt.28-11-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that petitioner was simply an agent of the company and not a single farthing has been deposited in the account of this petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner in collusion with other accused persons grabbed the money of the complainant. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T