Subash Chandra Jha @ Subhash Chandra Jha @ Subhash Chandra v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13937 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2016 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== Subash Chandra Jha @ Subhash Chandra Jha @ Subhash Chandra Son of Late Munan Jha The then Chief Manager, Bank of India, Gaya, R/o- Gandhi Nagar, Road No. 04, Near Patliputra Railway Junction, P.O- Ashiana Nagar, P.S- Rajiv Nagar, Patna 80025 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Naveen Kumar Jha Assistant Director ( PMLA) , Directorate of Enforcement , (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), Government of India, 1st Floor, Chandpura Place, Bank Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) No. 2 of 2018 arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/05/2016 dated 26.12.2016 for the offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on suspicion. The allegations are specific against one Moti Lal who is the kindpin of the whole occurrence, but

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13937 of 2019(20) dt.16-11-2021 2/2 the said Moti Lal in his statement has not stated anything against this petitioner.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused and there are allegations against him of being involved in illegal and unlawful deposit/transfer of funds from the bank account of complainant and others. Petitioner therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T