Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1767 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-432 Year-2019 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Tiwari Son Of Late Amleshwar Tiwari Resident Of Village- Dahibhatta, P.S.- Uchaka Gaon, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Kumari Hunny D/o Yugal Kishore Singh R/o Village and P.O.- Jhikati, P.S.- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Ojha, Advocate :

Mr. Arya Washist, Advocate :

Ms. Nutan Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 29-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner persuaded the informant and her friend to invest in the FIMI scheme of Kanwhizzz Company, showing himself as a Sales Officer of the said company and they will get the amount in double after 30 months, as a result, the informant and her friends deposited Rs.16,00,910/- in the said scheme and they get monthly benefits only for two-three

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1767 of 2021(13) dt.29-11-2022 2/2 months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner has clean antecedent.

Now, a reply to the rejoinder has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 stating that the said company had generated the code also for its customer in the tabular form showing the investment of its customers and the petitioner is an employee of the said company and the said company had given a car to the informant but it has been countered on behalf of the informant that her father had purchased the car in question in her name and still paying the EMI, as such, the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. Petitioner has cheated the informant and others like her also. In view of the fact that the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 09.07.2021, is hereby confirmed. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T