Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4982/2017dismissed

Akhilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-19Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4982 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -738 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Akhilesh Kumar, son of Jai Govind Prasad, resident of Zila School Road, Purnea, in the house of Lal Babu Sahni, P.S. K. Hat District Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahtash Ali Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 19-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in K. Hat P.S. Case No.738 of 2014 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. It is alleged in the written report that the petitioner introduced the informant with one Prashant Kumar Thakur as Branch Manager of Promotec Infratake Ltd. The petitioner told that this is branch of ICore E Service Company and on his insistence the petitioner deposited rupees one lac fifty thousand with assurance to get annual interest at the rate of 12%. Deposit certificate was also given for the aforesaid amount. The petitioner and other accused has assured the complainant that they will give

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4982 of 2017 (3) dt.19-05-2017 2/2 rupees one lac sixty thousand on 27.02.2014. When the complainant went to take repayment of the amount, he found the branch locked. Complainant then contacted the petitioner then he told to recover the said money from Calcutta. The informant made pressure and then the petitioner disclosed name of other accused, but in spite of all efforts taken by the informant payment has not been made to the informant.

There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner.

In view of such, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer is rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T