Shamse Alam And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.28572 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2017 Thana -MAJORGANJ District- SITAMARHI ======================================================
1. Shamse Alam, Son of Azada Ali,Branch Manager, Resident of VillageBagaha, P.S.- Kanhauli, District- Sitamarhi.
2. Shatrughan Kumar, Son of Ramadhar Sah, Cashier, Resident of VillageBahera, P.S.- Mejorganj, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
This is an application for bail in connection with Majorganj P.S.Case No. 75 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3, 4, 5 of Prize Cheats and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 7(2) of Bihar Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2002. Allegation against the petitioners is that they have collected money on behalf of Mahua Joint Liability Group Development Co-operative Samiti on the plea of giving interest to them and office of the petitioners was raided and they have been arrested making such type of business.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no offence is made out against the petitioners and they have
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28572 of 2017 (3) dt.18-07-2017 2/2 falsely been implicated in this case and furthermore petitioners are employees of the company only and are in custody for four months.
Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant also. They have opposed the prayer for bail on the ground the petitioners in collusion with other accused persons misappropriated huge amount, deposited in Co-operative Samiti and they are running business of depositing money in Samiti without having licence from proper authority. Having heard both sides and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. However, they may renew their prayer for bail either after framing of charge in this case or after three months, whichever is earlier.
At the same time, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioners.
With the above observation, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U