Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30902/2017dismissed

Hans Raj Viral @ Mantu Sah v. The Superintendent Of Police , CBI , Ranchi

2017-07-27Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30902 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2015 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Hans Raj Viral @ Mantu Sah, son of Deep Narayan Sah, resident of Village- Ekchari, P.S. Rasalpur (Kahalgaon), District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bibhuti Pandey, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SC, CBI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 4/ 27-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in RC 4(A)/15 (Special Case No.06 of 2015) instituted for the offence under Section(s) 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2), 13(1) (d) of the Prevention Corruption Act pending in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI-I, Patna. As per written report filed by Assistant General Manager and Regional Head of Bank of Baroda, total `495.32 lacs were disbursed as loan to 534 account holders in Pathakdih Chanpatia Branch of Muzaffarpur Region, by the Branch Manager in collusion with this petitioner and several other persons on the basis of forged land possession certificate and impersonating fake land possession certificates.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30902 of 2017 (4) dt.27-07-2017 2/2 Police has submitted charge-sheet against other accused persons. This petitioner is said to have become guarantor of one person, who was already dead, in one of loan account. Counsel for the CBI submits that various incriminating articles have been recovered from the house of the petitioner. He has further submitted that anticipatory bail application of one of the accused has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 01.07.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No.26138 of 2017.

In view of such, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer is rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T