Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30392 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2018 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna ====================================================== Arvind Kumar S/O Lal Bihari Ray R/O Village Sariya, P.S-Janipur, P.OSoranpur, Phulwarisharif, District-Patna, Sole Proprietor Of M/S Rohit Tractor Having Office At Mustafapur, Khagaul, Danapur Cantt., And DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Saket Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, if any, within three weeks. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being supplier of tractors to whom the loan proceeds were released has embezzled the public money to the extent of cost of trolley, insurance premium of tractor and registration amount of trolley by submitting fabricated invoice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30392 of 2021(4) dt.27-02-2023 2/2 case. He submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case by the informant with ulterior motive of recovering loss incurred because of internal corruption in the bank. He submits that the petitioner is a vendor of tractor and has regularly been in the business of supply of tractors. The informant granted loans to the borrowers after due verification and further the petitioner received loan proceeds as per policy of the public sector bank. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have allegedly cheated Rs. 50 lacs of the bank. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Khagaul P.S. Case No. 163 of 2018.

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