Priya Kumari v. The State Of Bihar Throug C.B.I. Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55683 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2015 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Priya Kumari D/O Sri Pramod Kumar R/O Mohalla- Bank Colony, Opposite Ayodhaya Prasad Mahila College, Meharpar, Biharharif, P.S.- Laheri, Distt.- Nalanda 2.

Sima Kumari W/O Sri Nitish Kumar R/O Mohalla- Bank Colony, Opposite Ayodhaya Prasad Mahila College, Meharpar, Biharharif, P.S.- Laheri, Distt.- Nalanda 3.

Gita Devi W/O Sri Pramod Kumar R/O Mohalla- Bank Colony, Opposite Ayodhaya Prasad Mahila College, Meharpar, Biharharif, P.S.- Laheri, Distt.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar throug C.B.I. Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the CBI :

Mr. AK Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for offence punishable under sections 420 and other ancillary sections of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

It is alleged that the branch manager sanctioned loan to 598 persons to the tune of Rs.1422.15 lacs. Investigation revealed that total 328 persons including the petitioners received said load amount on the basis of altered and fabricated Land Possession Certificate. In fact, petitioners received Rs.10.90 lacs, 50.5 lacs and Rs.29.74 loan amount respectively in their bank accounts.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55683 of 2021(3) dt.05-07-2022 2/2 is no specific allegation against the petitioners either in the FIR or in the charge sheet. None of beneficiaries came forward and claimed that their loan amount was misappropriated. Loans were sanctioned by the bank manager after due verification of documents and bank officials got the subsidy from the Government. Petitioners were no way involved in the entire transaction. Moreover, the amount which were deposited in the account of these petitioners were later on transferred in the account of M/S Anukul Agro Agency. Petitioners are ladies and have no criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the CBI opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that they received huge amount of loan in their respective bank accounts on the basis of altered and fabricated Land Possession Certificate.

In view of the nature of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioners is refused with direction to surrender and seek regular bail which would be considered and disposed of on its own merit without prejudice.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U T