Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9032/2018rejected

Pradeep Barnwal v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-06Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9032 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -580 Year- 2017 Thana -AMARPUR District- BANKA ======================================================

1. Pradeep Barnwal S/o Late Janardhan Barnwal, R/o Village- Kediya Enarawaran , P.S.- Pullidumar , District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhakar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2018 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Amarpur (Fully Dumar) P.S. case No. 580 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the B.P.I.D. Act.

The informant alleged that the petitioner and his brother, Ashoad Barnwal took Rs. 39,500/- to deposit in a Chit Fund Company, Sun Plant Agro Finance Co. Other villagers namely Mukesh Kumar Barnwal, Deen Dayal Barnwal, Ram Krishna Barnwal, Bablu Ram Tudu and Mahendra Ram also deposited huge amount in the company through the petitioner and his brother but even after maturation the petitioner did not pay the amount.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9032 of 2018 (4) dt.06-07-2018 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son and the daughter of the petitioner also deposited money in the said company but it appears that it was the petitioner and his brother who took money from the informant and other villagers and deposited in the company but money was not returned after maturation. Brother of the petitioner, Ashoak Barnwal has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 30.03.2018 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 1394 of 2018.

Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner took huge money from many villagers in order to deposit the same in the company but the villagers did not get even a farthing after maturation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/Rajan U T