Shiv Kumar @ Shiv Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18046 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Shiv Kumar @ Shiv Chaudhary S/O Late Harkhu Chaudhary R/O- Sri Ganesh Villa Apartment, Flat No 102 Basudeo Jhari Apartment, Baily Road, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-12-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Complaint Case No. 232C of 2021 dated 11.01.2021 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution case, upon the assurance of the petitioner and the co-accused persons, Rs. 4,50,000/- was invested as fix deposit by the complainant in the scheme of Sahara India E-Shine having its maturity date on 18.08.2020. After maturity, Sahara did not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18046 of 2023(8) dt.11-12-2023 2/2 pay Rs. 11,75,400/- to the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is only an agent of the said Sahara Company and he has no authority for returning the matured amount. The complainant's grievances would have to be redressed only by the higher authority of the Sahara India Company. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 232C of 2021, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T