Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27090/2024dismissed

Vijay Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-02Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27090 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2023 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Sahu Son Of Dilip Kumar Sahu @ Dilip Kumar R/O-Mansa Devi Railway Colony, 46/E, Railway Station, Rae Bareli, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Rai Bareli, Uttar Pradesh ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

The Branch Manager, North Bihar Gramin Bank, Sahpur Nautan, Siwan Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Amitesh Jha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Nautan P.S. Case No. 225 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons are said to have committed fraud of Rs.11 lakh by opening various savings accounts, term deposits, other accounts and issuing fake deposit certificates.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27090 of 2024(4) dt.02-12-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner joined the service in the year 2014. He further submit there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the investigation is still going on.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T