Parvej Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39763 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2021 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Parvej Ansari Son of Munna Ansari Resident of Village - Jagdishpur, P.S.- Khanpur, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-01-2022 Heard the parties through the video conferencing. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. Petitioner who is in custody since 7.4.2021 seeks regular bail in connection with Musrigharari P.S. Case No. 36 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 419 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner who has deceived the people on the pretext of being employee of Pahal Financial Pvt. Ltd. who along with other accused persons has accumulated huge amount by collecting rupees six hundred each individual. The FIR was lodged as such by the Branch Manager of the Company.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39763 of 2021(2) dt.06-01-2022 2/3 submits that there is no documentary evidence of money transaction and it is the Branch Manager who had sent the petitioner to Gangapur to recovery the loan amount from the borrowers, some persons planted by the Branch Manager forcibly handed over to the petitioner to the police on the allegation of committing forgery.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 7.4.2021 without there being any evidence to show that he has deceived the public at large by committing fraud. He further submits that the complicity of the Branch Manager who has lodged the FIR with certain anti social elements cannot be ruled out and just to save himself, the Branch Manager has lodged the false case against the petitioner. The learned APP has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Having considered the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation made in the FIR as well having perused the seizure it appears nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner above named, let the petitioner, named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39763 of 2021(2) dt.06-01-2022 3/3 Shri Chandra Bhushan Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur, in connection with Musrigharari P.S. Case No. 36 of 2021subject to the following condition:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (Purnendu Singh, J) Ravi/- U T