Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22484 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-295 Year-2020 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Son Of Ramsewak Gope Resident Of Village- Mahugain, Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Bandana Sinha, Adv.

Md. Shakir Ahmad, Adv.

Mr. Gajendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-03-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P assisted by learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case No.295 of 2020. The informant, Shambhu Sharan Sao is license holder for running Customer Service Center of State Bank and the code was allotted to him as Business Correspondent of Save Solution Private Limited. As per allegation, the present petitioner was working under him as Up-Sanchalak and code was also allotted to him. The allegation against the petitioner is that he collected money from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22484 of 2021(5) dt.09-03-2022 2/2 number of Account Holders and, thereafter, after misappropriating the money of Rs.23,88,000/-, the petitioner absconded. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not Sanchalak of Business Correspondent of Save Solution Private Limited, rather the code is allotted to the informant. He has submitted further that even if it is assumed to be true that he was collecting money under the present informant, it is impossible that such a huge amount is left with him be un-deposited. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional P.P. has submitted that the statement of Account Holders have been recorded in paragraph nos.99, 100, 101 and 102 of the case diary, in which the witnesses have stated that they handed over money in the hand of the present petitioner to deposit.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) Prakash Narayan /- U T