Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53622/2016dismissed

Pushpendra Kumar Suman v. The Union Of India Through C B I

2016-12-21Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53622 of 2016 ====================================================== Pushpendra Kumar Suman, Son of Sri Anant Ram Ahirwar, resident of Hare Krishna Colony, P.O. + P.S. Sasaram, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India through C B I .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (SC,CBI) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

21-12-2016 Heard Sri Rakesh Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, Central Bureau of Investigation.

The present petition has been filed with a prayer to restore Cr. Misc. No. 19709 of 2016, which stood dismissed on 04-07-2016, in view of repeated non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner.

The original petition i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 19709 of 2016 was filed for grant of anticipatory bail in R.C. Case No. 05/S/2015 registered for offence under Section 120(B) r/w Sections 406/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Before hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on the present restoration petition, the Court asked him to address on merit of the case.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53622 of 2016 (2) dt.21-12-2016 2/2 I have examined the matter. In the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, being Branch Manager of Canara Bank of Sasaram, conspiring with other accused person, has put the Bank to suffer loss of huge amount. The allegation is that the petitioner has extended loan to even fictitious persons. Since while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail, this Court had noticed specific accusation against the petitioner and even at the time of hearing of this restoration petition, the Court examined the matter, the Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in allowing the present restoration petition. Moreover, the ground, which has been taken in the present petition, is not sufficient to persuade the Court to allow the petition.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T