Dharmatma Choubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47766 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-868 Year-2021 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== DHARMATMA CHOUBEY S/o Maheshwar Choubey Resident of VillageEkderwa, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar Dubey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-01-2023 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No.868 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is based on the written petition of informant Susanta Kumar Jena who is Area Head of Manpuram Finance Limited and he narrates that his company gives loan against Gold on the basis of its purity. On 23.11.2021 he got information from the Auditor that about 591.6 gm. fake gold was found in Branch of Gopalganj. It is alleged that this irregularity of Rs.19,31,568/- was committed by the petitioner with the help of other officials of the branch.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47766 of 2022(3) dt.30-01-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail petition. It is further submitted that petitioner is the head of the branch and no specific allegation is made against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner as a head of the branch have all liability and he caused damage of Rs.19.31.568/- to the branch.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T