Mantoo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2870 of 2016 (2) dt.24-08-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2870 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2014 Thana -LAHERIMUHALLA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Mantoo Kumari, Branch Manager son of Arjun Prasad resident of VillagePali, Police Station- Kashichak, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-08-2016 Heard both sides.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Laheri P.S.Case No.83 of 2014 pending in the Court of CJM, Nalanda at Biharsharif registered for an offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 10.03.2015 passed in Cr.Misc.No.2891 of 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of Beard Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and he persuaded the customers to deposit the amount in the company and after maturation the customers would get amount in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2870 of 2016 (2) dt.24-08-2016 return. On such persuasion and assurance, the investors made investment in the company but they did not get any return. It is submitted that a complaint was made in the SEBI against directors of the company to return the money amongst the investors but the directors of the company has not yet complied the order of the SEBI. It is submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner was simply an employ of the company. Be that as it may, it was the petitioner who persuaded the investors to deposit the huge amount on assurance to get good return but the investors were cheated and prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has already been rejected, I do not find any reason to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) B.Kr./- U T