Indrajeet Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28516 of 2017 (4) dt.24-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28516 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2016 Thana -ASHOK PAPER MILL DistrictDARBHANGA ======================================================

1. Indrajeet Paswan Son of Sri Awadhlal Paswan, Resident of Village and P.O.- Ratanpura, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B. N. Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ashok Paper Mill P.S. Case No. 101 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant and many other signatories of the application alleged that the petitioner along with Nehal Khan and Indal Pandit collected money from the informant and others but, did not deposit the same in the SDL company. The SDL company fled away with money of the informant and others.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner used to deposit the money in the company. The petitioner is an agent of the company. Nehal Khan has already been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 19.05.2017 by learned Additional Sessions

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28516 of 2017 (4) dt.24-07-2017 Judge, Darbhanga and the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing.

It appears that the informant and others made specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner collected money from the informant and others but did not return the same. The SDL company fled away after closing the company.

Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner that the petitioner being an agent collected huge money from different persons but the company was closed and the petitioner did not return the matured amount to the informant and others, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders in the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order pray for regular bail and prayer for regular bail of the petitioner shall be considered taking into consideration that Nehal Khan another agent of the company has already been enlarged on regular bail. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) KKSINHA/- U T