Pradeep Kumar Rai And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8203 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -26 Year- 2016 Thana -DIGHWARA District- SARAN ======================================================
1. Pradeep Kumar Rai, son of Sri Sheo Narayan Rai resident of village Chhot Jhauwa, P.S. Awtar Nagar, District Saran at Chapra.
2. Binod Kumar Rai, Son of Sri Ram Pukar Rai, resident of village Chhot Jhauwa, P.S. Awtar Nagar, District Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar 3, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Dighwara P.S. Case No. 26 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 506, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I. Act.
It is alleged in the written report that the petitioners introduced the informant and others regarding investment of their money in Wird Infrastructure Corporation Limited (non banking company) whose Branch was opened in Dighwara. They convinced that aforesaid non-banking company is approved by the RBI. The informant and other depositors on such statement of the petitioners, invested the money in the aforesaid non-banking company and after maturity, the cheque was given to the depositors which bounced. It has further been
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8203 of 2017 (3) dt.29-03-2017 2/2 alleged that another cheque of Rs.4,68,000/- signed by accused Abhijeet Chaturvedi was given to the complainant which also bounced and later on, it is learnt that the company has been taken over by G.R. Agro Project Ltd. The complainant and other met the Directors of the said company and sent legal notice and made request to make payment but no action was taken. The said company has misappropriated the money deposited by various depositors.
Case diary has been received.
The learned A.P.P. has pointed out that the witnesses in paragraphs-6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have supported the case and levelled specific allegation of overt act against the petitioners and other accused persons.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.
The petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail.
(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T