Rajnish Kumar @ Raj Raman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16580 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2019 Thana- SHAHKUND District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== RAJNISH KUMAR @ RAJ RAMAN Son of Yogendra Das Resident of Village - Belthu, P.S.- Shahkund, Dist.- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual Court proceedings. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Shahkund P.S. Case No.33 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur.

The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that petitioner in association of other co-accused was running a Grahak Sewa Kendra, Harpur of State Bank of India and is said to have misappropriated huge amount of money of the informant and other customers.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16580 of 2020(4) dt.13-10-2020 2/2 the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not running the Grahak Sewa Kendra and on the alleged date and time of incident the petitioner was at Kota and participating in a training in Western Middle Railway Wagon Repair Shop as a helper. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner along with other co-accused have withdrawn amount from the accounts of the innocent illiterate persons, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and particularly considering the seriousness of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T