Sunil Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32818 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2016 Thana -BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ramesh Prasad Sahni, Director Aryan Nutrient Food Project LTD, Permanent R/o Village + Post- Gurmia, P.S.- Kartaha Lalganj, District- Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Rahul Kumar, S/o Anil Mandal, R/o Village + Post- Thatha, P.S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rina Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ahtash Ali Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-08-2018 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 14 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation as per F.I.R is that petitioner and others runs a company, in the name and style of Aryan Nutrient Food Project Limited, Aryan Agro Project India Limited & Holding Private Limited and it is alleged that they engaged the complainant as a agent in the said company and asked him to get the money deposited of the persons for better returns, however, on maturity the money was not paid to any beneficiary and it is said that the company fled away by taking their money.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32818 of 2018 (3) dt.20-08-2018 2/2 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has falsely been made accused in this case and he only happens to be employee of the said company and he has no concern with regard to transaction of money between agent and the company. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that more than two and half crores of Rupees of different beneficiaries has been swallowed by the petitioner and others. Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of accusation, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed.

However, the petitioner, if so desire, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail and if any such application is filed the court below shall decided the same on the merit of the case and shall pass an appropriate order, if possible on same day.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T