Nagendra Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19237 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2015 Thana -AHIAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Nagendra Pandit, son of Satahu Pandit, Resident of Village- Khanejadpur Daudchhapra, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner and other F.I.R. named accused persons told the informant to take policy of Vardhman Sunmark Insurance Company after giving assurance that the said Insurance Company is attached with Life Insurance Company of India and good return is being provided and in that way, the petitioner cheated several people and after collecting several lakhs of rupees, closed the branch and fled away.

Submission is of false implication and two cases have been lodged by the informant bearing the present one and other

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19237 of 2017 (2) dt.17-05-2017 2/2 Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 444 of 2015. Wife of the petitioner has been allowed pre-arrest bail in this case vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 49677 of 2015 by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2017. No fruitful purpose is going to be served by detaining the petitioner is in custody. Chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the detention of the petitioner, now the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M.

, Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2015 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T