Vishal Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2954 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-553 Year-2018 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Vishal Kumar Sinha Son of Sri Uma Kant Prasad Resident of New Colony, Jailhatta, Sarvodya Nagar, Daltanganj, P.S- Daltanganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sarita Kumari W/o - Lav Kush Ram, D/O- Ranjit Ram Resident of VillageShivchak, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 06-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. PP for the State.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Ara Town P.S. Case No. 553 of 2018 registered under Sections 420, 406, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

On persuasion of Jay Shankar Pathak to earn lucrative interest by depositing money in D.G.N. Company, the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2954 of 2019(5) dt.06-09-2019 2/3 informant gave Rs. 1,50,000/- to Jay Shankar Pathak against receipt. On maturity of the scheme, when she approached Jay Shankar Pathak to claim her maturity amount, firstly, he avoided and lastly slated her in the name of her caste and made her to leave his house and the aforesaid company has also been closed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. He happens to be one of the Directors of the aforesaid company. Said Jay Shankar Pathak is not an agent of the said company and he has also not deposited any amount in his company. Receipt filed by the informant in the case is forged one and not issued by any employee of the company. Appellant has been languishing in custody since 5.04.2019. Though, some cases have been lodged against the appellant but he is on bail in the said cases.

Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in connection

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2954 of 2019(5) dt.06-09-2019 3/3 with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 553 of 2018.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) rohit/- U T