Raman Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51024 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2013 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Raman Kumar Verma S/O Shatrughan Prasad Verma Resident Of VillageLaxmisagar (Babar Bigha), P.S.- L.N.M.U., District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-01-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, on information received by the police some persons are running a non-banking company and also defrauding the money of the subscriber. The police went there and found that co-accused Vivekanand Jha and Mitesh Kumar Jha were in the office. The co-accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51024 of 2022(3) dt.11-01-2023 2/3 Vivekanand Jha claimed to be Divisional Manager and recovered the money from 140 subscribers and thereafter, the money was sent to the account of C.M.D., Manoj Kumar Chand. The petitioner and other co-accused persons in connivance with one another were collecting money from the innocent persons and cheated money on the basis of fake company after giving false assurance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is a mere employee of that company and did not misappropriate the money of any person. Other coaccused person has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 24.10.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44654 of 2013. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.07.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2116 of 2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating during the course of trial. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the materials available on record against the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51024 of 2022(3) dt.11-01-2023 3/3 and gravity of the offence, I am of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The petition is rejected and the petitioner is directed to surrender to the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and the Court below will consider the prayer of the bail of the petitioner without being prejudice by this order.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T