Ram Rup Choudhary And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57618 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -46 Year- 2015 Thana -BARARI District- KATIHAR ======================================================

1. Ram Rup Choudhary, Son of Late Satya Narain Choudhary

2. Shanti Devi,W/o Ram Rup Choudhary Both are Resident of Village- Mainadih, Shivsthan, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Ambika Bhagat(APP) For the informant : Mr. Sanjev Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainantinformant. Petitioner No.1 Ram Rup Choudhary is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barari (Semapur) P.S. Case No.46 of 2015 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(5) of the S.C./S.T. Act, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar.

Earlier, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre for resolution of the disputes. However, it appears that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57618 of 2015 (4) dt.22-06-2016 2/2 though the Mediator has reported that the dispute has been resolved, no such resolution of dispute appears from the documents, annexed with the Mediator's report. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-informant submits that another case that of accused Ganesh Choudhary was also referred to the Mediation Centre and in such mediation also, resolution of the disputes has not been effected, rather it has failed.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and that the petitioner has had an active role to play in the act of defrauding the depositors by his son-in-law Ganesh Choudhary and also because such fact has been found to be in evidence in several paragraphs of the case diary, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner No.1 Ram Rup Choudhary. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T