Pankaj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13927 of 2016 (3) dt.12-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13927 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -41 Year- 2016 Thana -GOVINDGANJ DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Pankaj Kumar Yadav, S/o Punyadeo Yadav R/o Village- Jafara, P.S.- Siwan Mufassil, District- Siwan..... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganjendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.L.Pandit(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Govindganj (Areraj) P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, during course of checking the petitioner tried to flee away but he was caught and from his possession 11 ATM Cards of different banks besides mobile were recovered as per seizure list and the petitioner confessed his involvement in fraudulent withdrawal of money from ATM after changing the ATM Cards.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no independent witness, all the witnesses are police personnel, one

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13927 of 2016 (3) dt.12-05-2016 witness Ram Snehi Singh has stated that one of the ATM recovered which is in the name of his son was exchanged in ATM cabin by a man and he was given ATM of Awdhesh Bhagat and thereafter, from account Rs.87,000/- was withdrawn fraudulently. The petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2016 and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned APP seriously opposes.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery and statement of witness Ram Snehi Singh, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which if the petitioner at no fault, may renew his prayer of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T