Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52718/2024dismissed

Ashutosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-09Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52718 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2024 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Ashutosh Kumar Son of Umesh Chandra Jha Resident of Village - U.C House, Bhawani Nagar, Stadium Road, Sanichar Ashthan, P.S -Madhubani Town, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 09-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Gandhimaidan P.S. Case No. 206 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the Aadhar Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was employed as a penal lawyer of Sri. Ram General Insurance Company Limited. The petitioner submitted certain fake document and claimed compensation due which the Company has suffered a loss of Rs.10 lakh.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52718 of 2024(6) dt.09-12-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that no document has been produced by the Company to show that the petitioner has committed the said offence. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is also involved in the present case.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of the offence and materials available in the case diary, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T