Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42315/2015dismissed

Vishwajeet Kumar Pal @ Vishwajeet Pal @ Jitu @ Vishwajit Kumar Pal @ Vishwajeet Kuar Pal v. The State Of Bihar

2015-12-02Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42315 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -195 Year- 2015 Thana -RAMGARH District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================

1. Vishwajeet Kumar Pal @ Vishwajeet Pal @ Jitu @ Vishwajit Kumar Pal @ Vishwajeet Kuar Pal Son of Shri Kishun Pal @ Krishna Pal, Resident of Village- Sato Awanti Chaparang, Police Station- Ramgarh (Nuaon), District- Kaimur (Bhabua).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Lal, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sangita Sharma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-12-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ramgarh (Nuaon) P.S. Case No. 195/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is alleged to have withdrew Rs. 10,500/- from the account of Mantu Yadav by forging his signature. When manager of the bank received complaint about the forged withdrawal he searched out the CCTV footage and found that on 07.07.2015 Vishwajeet Pal @ Jitu the petitioner withdrew the entire amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also accountholder in the same bank, but it has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42315 of 2015 (3) dt.02-12-2015 2/2 nowhere stated that the petitioner also withdrew any money from his own account on 07.07.2015. He also submitted that the case has already been compromised.

It appears that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he after forging the signature of the informant withdrew Rs. 10,500/- from the account of the informant. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T