Dhananjay Choudhary @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25657 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2023 Thana- DURGAWATI District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Dhananjay Choudhary @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh S/O Shri Shankar Choudhary @ Harishankar Choudhary Village Machkhiya Ps Durgawati District Kaimur Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Narayan Sharma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as for the Informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 407 of 2023 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, the informant deposited Rs. 4 lakhs as fixed deposit in presence of two witnesses. It is further alleged that on 01.12.2023 when she went to Bank for withdrawal of invested money then the present Manager of the bank informed her that Rs. 3,60,000/- out of the fixed deposit has been transferred in the name of this petitioner who is C.S.P. (Customer Service Point).

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25657 of 2024(3) dt.25-06-2024 2/2 the allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus. From the F.I.R., it is apparent that the informant and the Bank Manager having good relation on or before the occurrence. The informant has deposited the amount on the advice of Bank Manager. It is further submitted that petitioner did not play any role in depositing the amount with the Bank or while issuing the Fixed Deposit Certificate. No transaction has been made from the account of the informant to the account of the petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by contending that during course of investigation it has come in paragraph no. 33 of the case-diary that petitioner fraudulently transferred Rs.3,60,000/- in his account without giving any knowledge to the informant.

6. Having considered the nature of the accusation and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T