Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40949/2016rejected

Ravi Ranjan Kumar Pandey @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-09-21Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40949 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40949 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -360 Year- 2015 Thana -BUXAR District- BUXAR ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan Kumar Pandey @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey son of Kamla Pandey, R/o mohalla- Budhan Purwa, Ward No. 16, Police Station- Buxar (Town), District-Buxar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. The Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Buxar Branch .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Amarendra Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP-34 For Opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 18.03.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4085 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 18.12.2015 and no loss was caused to any one, it was an attempt to commit fraud and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposes by submitting that the petitioner has opened account in ICICI Bank and tried to encash the amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- on the basis of forged cheque.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40949 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016 good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T