Rahul Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3152 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2016 Thana -CHEWARA District- SEKHPURA ====================================================== Rahul Chauhan, son of Musafir Chauchan, Resident of Village- Barari Bigha, P.S.- Chewara, District- Sheikhpura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Chewara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the written report that the petitioner was working as Agent in Inormous Company Pvt. Ltd. He had taken money from the villagers for depositing the same in the company. The names of several villagers have been mentioned in the written report from whom huge amount has been collected by the petitioner. The depositors received amount through EMI in four months and, thereafter, the petitioner and other accused persons fled away. It is further alleged that by the aforesaid money, the petitioner and other accused persons have purchased

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3152 of 2017 (3) dt.02-03-2017 2/2 House, Motorcar, Cement Plant and land etc.

The case diary has been received. The learned A.P.P. after perusal of the case diary has submitted that witnesses in paragraphs 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 34, 35 and 41 have supported the allegation against the petitioner. The police has also enclosed the copy of the Passbook and the certificates supplied by the Inormous Company Pvt. Ltd. to different depositors with promise of high return and the petitioner along with other accused persons, later on, fled away without making payment of the amount to the depositors.

Therefore, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T