Sunil Kumar Ram @ Arun Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33150 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2013 Thana- ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR District- Patna ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR RAM @ ARUN PANDIT, Male, aged about 38 years, Son of Baudhu Pandit @ Baiju Pandit, Resident of Kumhar Toli, P.S.- Lodana, District - Dhanbad, State of Jharkhand.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gouranga Chatterjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Atul Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) 08-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406,420,465,467,468,471,120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(D) modified 13(1)(A) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

As per FIR, it has been alleged that this petitioner in the name of Sunil Kumar Ram, after depositing forged NSC in the Bank, in his name, took loan of Rs.73.57 lacs and fled away. The Bank as well as the Economic Offence Unit after enquiry found that all the forgery has been made by this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33150 of 2021(2) dt.08-10-2021 2/2 petitioner as he introduced himself as Sunil Kumar Ram on basis of forged papers whereas correct name of petitioner is Arun Kumar Pandit and on basis of photographs and CCTv footage it was found that Sunil Kumar Ram and Arun Pandit are same persons.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, after framing of charges, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (S. Kumar, J) Sanjay/- U T