Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22428/2017dismissed

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-06Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22428 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -152 Year- 2016 Thana -NARHAT District- NAWADA =========================================================== Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Prasad, Son of Baleshwar Prasad, resident of VillageMuretah Chak, P.S. Sitamarhi, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Through Chairman Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Narhat P.S. Case No. 152 of 2016 dated 02.10.2016 instituted under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken a tractor on loan from the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna and the said tractor was hypotheticated/mortgaged to the Bank but before the entire amount was repaid, he sold the tractor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the tractor was not productive, he sold the same and has also deposited some money.

5. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner knowing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22428 of 2017 dt.06-07-2017 2/2 fully well that the tractor was hypotheticated / mortgaged to the Bank sold it without any permission which clearly reveals his intention of fraud. It was further submitted that the petitioner has four other criminal cases against him which are pending.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. The interim order dated 30.05.2017 stands vacated. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T