Rajeev Ranjan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15294 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -35 Year- 2016 Thana -ISHAKCHAK District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Rajeev Ranjan Singh Son of Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Sector 6D Bokaro Steel City , Police Station- Bokaro in the District- of Bokaro (Jharkhand).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. B.P. Pandey, Sr.Adv. Fro the informant :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar Singh -5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of bail in connection with Ishak Chak P.S.Case No.35 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468 and120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner raised some grievances, he was appointed as the Additional Director of the Company. It is further submitted that the complainant is not an aggrieved person rather he is an employee of the Company and he has lodged the case at the instance of the Managing Director of Company. On the other hand, the petitioner has also deposited money and he is one of the aggrieved persons but he has been made accused in this case at the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15294 of 2017 (3) dt.07-04-2017 2/2 instance of the main accused when he raised objections. The petitioner is in custody for about three months. In support of his contention, he filed agreement paper and some other documents. Heard learned A.P.P. also and the learned counsel for the informant. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner is Additional Director of the Company and he is one of the signatories on deed of agreement and the documents filed by the petitioner are after institution of the case and any other thought. It has also been submitted that the petitioner in collusion with others, collected crores of rupees and thereafter closed the company and fled away from there and they cheated large number of persons.

Having heard both sides and in view of the allegations as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As such the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U