Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36331/2017dismissed

Ram Pramod Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-08-29Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36331 of 2017 (3) dt.29-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36331 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2386 Year- 2016 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Ram Pramod Singh Son of Shri Shiv Murat Singh Resident of Flat No. 102, Shailijeet Apartment, Road No. 1, Kailash Path, Shivpuri, PS - Shastri Nagar, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Late Dinanath Singh Resident of Road No 6, PO - Keshri Nagar, PS - Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shantanu Kumar For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Gauri Shankar Gupta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 29-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Complaint Case No. 2386 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section-406 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged by the complainant that he has invested Rs. 828,000/- from November, 2014 to March, 2015 in Idol India Corporation Ltd. of which, the petitioner was a Regional Manager. There was a scheme of the company of making payment of interest @ 12.5 % per annum. The complainant purchased the bonds as per scheme of the company and after maturity, the money was not paid. Thereafter, a cheque of Rs. 2,24,000/- was issued by the company but the cheque got bounced.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36331 of 2017 (3) dt.29-08-2017 It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he has resigned from the company on 07-07-2015 (Annexure-3). Annexure-2 is joining letter of the petitioner in the company, which shows that he joined in the company on 13-06-2013. In this manner, from the own statement of the petitioner, it appears that he was in company from 13-06-2013 to 07-07-2015. All the investments have been made by the complainant during the aforesaid period.

Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T