Indrasen Kumar @ Indrasen Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37682 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-565 Year-2023 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== Indrasen Kumar @ Indrasen Gupta S/o Munni Lal R/o Village - Tapovan Road, Dakhingawan, P.S - Wazirganj, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rampur P.S. Case No. 565 of 2023 for the offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 06.09.2023 by the informant, Pradeep Kharwal.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, the Branch Manager of LIC Branch No. 1, Rampur alleged that forging the death claims, the petitioner alongwith his wife, Gudiya Kumari, an LIC agent, obtained death claims of twenty one life insurance policies to the tune of Rs. 32,35,000/-. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that main role can be assigned to his wife, Gudiya Kumari and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37682 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 2/2 petitioner is not the LIC agent. He further submits that he is trying his level best to return the entire amount of Rs. 32,35,000/- and substantial amount has already been returned.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that there is nothing on record to show that the amount of Rs. 32,35,000/- has been returned nor any certificate to this effect is on record and he has three criminal antecedent.

6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also the way the death policies have been forged to claim Rs. 32,35,000/-, the petitioner being the husband and his role has come up, the matter is of the year 2023, and still, the entire amount has not been returned, in that background, this Court is not inclined to extend relief to the petitioner.

7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

8. If, however, the petitioner surrenders within four weeks alongwith certificate of the LIC Branch to show that the entire amount of Rs. 32,35,000/- is returned, if surrender-cumbail application is filed, the same be considered and an appropriate order be passed preferably on the same day. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T