Ravindra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10493 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -132 Year- 2015 Thana -BITHAN BAZAR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Ravindra Kumar s/o Girdhari Yadav, r/v- Sakhawa, P.S. - Bithan, District - Samastipur and at present he is the Secretary of Dugdh Utpadan Sahyog Samiti, Sakhawa, P.S. - Bithan, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bithan P.S. Case No. 132/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Manager Bihar Rural Bank branch Bithan alleged that Ghurni Devi, Sanjay Yadav and Manoj Kumar neither took any loan from the bank nor executed any documents for advance of loan. Even the photo-graphs on the loan documents do not tally with the complainants. It appears that Ravindra Kumar (petitioner) Secretary of the Cooperative Society, forged the documents along with identity card and took loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on three accounts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10493 of 2017 (4) dt.09-05-2017 2/2 perusal of annexure-2, it appears that Sanjay Yadav admitted that he took loan and deposited Rs. 33,800/-. Similarly, Ghurni Devi also made statement and filed petition, but it appears that thorough enquiry was held and it transpired that the petitioner manufactured the documents for advance of loan in the name of Ghurni Devi, Sanjay Yadav and Manoj Kumar, although they did not filed any application for loan.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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