Praveen Pathak @ Parveen Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47086 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2021 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== PRAVEEN PATHAK @ PARVEEN PATHAK S/O MAHATMA KUMAR PATHAK Resident of Sadhu Chak, Sareya, P.S.- Gopalganj, DistrictGopalganj ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 120 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 405, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is admittedly an employee of Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch- Gopalganj on the post of Customer Service Representative. As per allegation, in collusion with co-accused Seema Devi, the petitioner being the employee of the Company facilitated her in issuing a policy in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47086 of 2021(3) dt.05-07-2022 2/3 name of her husband, Late Ram Bahadur Giri after the death of said Ram Bahadur Giri. The proposal for the policy was made on 10.04.2020 whereas the said Ram Bahadur Giri had died in a train accident on 22.10.2019, i.e. much prior to the insurance of the policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is an employee of the Company but he is not beneficiary of the alleged misdeed. He was made a scapegoat by the superior authorities of the Insurance Company. Per contra, the learned Addl.P.P., Sri Shailendra Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner is the person who was to examine the documents relating to the insurance policy and on his report the policy was issued.

The FIR shows itself that the petitioner was duty bound to make a report after inquiry and only on the basis of that report the policy is issued. It appears that the policy was issued on the basis of wrong report of the petitioner. As such, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47086 of 2021(3) dt.05-07-2022 3/3