Mantoo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2891 of 2015 (3) dt.10-03-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2891 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2014 Thana -LAHERIMUHALLA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Mantoo Kumar Branch Manager S/o Arjun Prasad R/o Village - Pali, P.S. Kashichak, District - Nawada.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramsewak Choudhary(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Laheri P.S. Case No. 83/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner being manager of Beard Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. persuaded the customers to deposit amount in the Company and on maturation they would get good amount in return.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was manager of the company; he joined the company in the year 2012. The petitioner did not receive any amount from any of the customer, neither persuaded any customer to deposit the amount in the bank. The petitioner did not put signature on any bonds or debentures. On the other hand, the Learned A.P.P. has submitted that during

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2891 of 2015 (3) dt.10-03-2015 the course of the investigation almost all the witnesses have stated that it was the petitioner who took money from the customers and neither interest was paid nor after maturation the principal amount with interest was paid to any of the customers.

On perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner being branch manager and other employees of the bank persuaded different customers, who deposited Rs. 50, 000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and they also received interest thereon for few months, but thereafter neither interest was paid nor principal amount was returned. It appears that the petitioner and the company of the petitioner defalcated huge amount of innocent people, hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Vinita/- U T