Abhimanuy Kumar Verma @ Abhimanyu Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27212 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2016 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

ABHIMANUY KUMAR VERMA @ ABHIMANYU KUMAR VERMA Son of Gangadhar Prasad Verma Resident of Village - Sukhasan (Chakla), P.S.- Madhepura, Distt - Madhepura.

2.

Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajiv Ranjan Son of Binay Kumar Das Resident of Mohalla - Chitragupta Nagar near Government Polytechnic, P.S. - Purnea, Distt - Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ladania Branch, P.S-Ladania, Dist.-Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 135 of 2016 registered under sections 406 and 409 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-IV, Madhubani.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. They are not named in the first information report. In the F.I.R. co-accused Sanjay Kumar, Head Cashier of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27212 of 2019(6) dt.28-08-2019 2/2 Punjab National Bank, has been made accused. In course of investigation, it has come that petitioner no.2 Rajeev Ranjan is brother of co-accused and petitioner no. 1 is brother of wife of co-accused. Further submission is that the petitioners have not withdrawn the alleged amount either through A.T.M. Card, withdrawal Slip or any cheque and they have been made accused of Bank conspiracy.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that on perusal of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, it appears that the petitioners have withdrawn the alleged money on different dates by cheques, which was transferred by the co-accused Sanjay Kumar. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T