Pramod Kumar Mehta @ Pramod Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62128 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2018 Thana- BHIMPUR District- Supaul * ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Mehta @ Pramod Mehta, S/o Shukhdeo Mehta, Resident of Village- Jiwachpur, P.S.- Bhimpur, Dist- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that the petitioner being the Operator of Customers Service Centre of Bank of India, Jiwachpur in the district of Supaul withdrew fraudulently, Rs.50,000/- of the informant in different transactions from the bank account of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant in the Fist Information Report has stated that the money was withdrawn after taking her thumb impression on the withdrawal slip so this is not in dispute that the money was withdrawn by the petitioner. It is also not the case of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62128 of 2018(7) dt.11-03-2019 2/3 prosecution that the petitioner verifier or passing officer of the withdrawal of money fraudulently. It is further submitted that the bank has not lodged any case of forgery against the petitioner. A statement has been made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent. Learned APP after going through the case diary submits that the withdrawal of the money has been made in several transactions. However, the informant has admitted the fact that her thumb impression was taken before withdrawal of the money.

Considering the fact that the case of the informant is not that the money was withdrawn by making forgery of her thumb impression or the signature rather it is the case of the informant that the withdrawal was made after taking her thumb impression and withdrawn money was not paid to her, coupled with the statement made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. 2nd , Supaul in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62128 of 2018(7) dt.11-03-2019 3/3 connection with Bhimpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T