Manish Kumar Ranjan v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.223 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -211 Year- 2017 Thana -NOKHA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Manish Kumar Ranjan, Son of Ram Kumar Sah @ Raj Kumar Sah, Resident of Station Road, Nokha (Near Hanuman Mandir, Ward No.10), Police Station- Nokha in the district of Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Nokha Branch, Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navin Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and learned counsel representing the Bank. The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No.211 of 2017, registered for offences alleged under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the facts and circumstances pleaded before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the amount of Rs.34,76,550/- disbursed by the bank is an admitted amount which the petitioner obtained for purchase of generator set, he may be allowed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- for the present which he undertakes to deposit before his release and the balance
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.223 of 2018 (2) dt.12-01-2018 amount of Rs.29,00,000/- shall be deposited by him in six equal monthly installment with the bank and the receipt thereof shall be produced in the court below each and every month. He submits that because of failure of the business of the petitioner, he is facing financial crisis.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant bank submits that since the petitioner is ready to pay the loan amount, he has no objection to the same, however, he submits that the right of the bank to recover other dues in connection with this amount shall not get prejudiced by virtue of the said order. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that the petitioner is ready to refund the money as stated hereinabove, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Judge-IX-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No.211 of 2017 and on submission of proof of deposit of Rs.five lakhs in cash, subject to the further condition that the petitioner in terms of his own undertaking shall keep on paying the balance amount of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.223 of 2018 (2) dt.12-01-2018 Rs.29 lacs in six equal monthly installment with the bank. Failure to pay any installment without such arrangement with the bank shall confer a right on the bank to seek cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
The application is allowed in terms indicated above. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U T