Rajendra Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6585 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2021 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== RAJENDRA SAO S/O MAHENDRA SAO R/o Mohalla- Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Sector 7, Block 5, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prakritita Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar Mr. Anil Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

As per the FIR, on the inducement of petitioner and other co-accused, the informant and others invested money in the Company. It is further alleged that profit was given for two to three months and after that the Company issued cheque, but the bank returned the said cheque due to insufficiency of fund. It is submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with the Company or with any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6585 of 2022(5) dt.22-12-2022 2/2 affairs of the said Company. Neither any cash nor any cheque has has been delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner has not issued any cheque on behalf of the Company. Petitioner was not the Director of the Company.

However, counsel for the informant and the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there is allegation against this petitioner that he along with other accused persons induced the informant and others to invest money in the company on the assurance that they will give profit which will be earned on invested money but they did not give the profit and grabbed the entire money. Petitioner has got similar criminal antecedent of seven cases.

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