Brajesh Kumar Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48360 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 2016 Thana -RAMGARHWA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Brajesh Kumar Yadav Son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Pachbhirwa, P.O.+P.S.- Sugauli, District East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ramavatar Choudhary, Branch Manager, SBI, Agriculture Development Branch Ramgarhwa District- East Champaran. Mobihe- 99771404451. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the Informant.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 33 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 406 of the I.P.C.

On the basis of the written complaint filed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Ramgarhwa this case has been lodged with the allegation that due to similarity of name in the account number of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48360 of 2016 (5) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 petitioner brother of Baj Kishore Yadav deposited Rs. 1,41,000/- and the petitioner withdrew the amount of Rs. 1,39,000/- on different dates and purchased motorcycle and mobile set but the said amount was of Baj Kishore Yadav. Earlier the petitioner admitted to return the entire amount but thereafter started evading the matter and then the case has been lodged. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has withdrawn his own amount, without any material the Branch Manager has lodged this case and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes prayer for bail by submitting that after making due enquiry the case has been lodged and during investigation also the allegation has been found true. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the above mentioned case pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Raxaul at Motihari.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T