Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14073/2015dfd for non appearance

Prahlad Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2015-07-23Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14073 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2015 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Prahlad Pandey son of Sri Mahendra Pandey resident of village: - Sarmastpur, P.S. - Paroo, District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Paroo Branch, P.S.- Paroo, Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, SC-PNB. Ms Gunja, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amrendra Pd., APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Paroo P. S. Case No. 30 of 2015 registered under Sections 420, 467 & 471 and of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the FIR, proprietor of M/s Krishna Traders made a complaint on 3.2.2015 to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur that vide Cheque No. 154750, an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- has been debited from his account by the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14073 of 2015 (4) dt.07-10-2015 2/2 petitioner Prahlad Pandey. He has further alleged that the said cheque was forged one and it was never issued by the Bank. The aforesaid complaint dated 3.2.2015 was forwarded by the Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur to Paroo Branch of the Punjab National Bank, in which the petitioner has his account. It has been alleged that on the basis of a forged cheque, the petitioner managed to get Rs.2,70,000/- credited to his account bearing No.

2907000110024237.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has never put his signature over the cheque and he is not aware as to how the amount got credited to his account. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bank have opposed the prayer for bail.

Regard being had to the serious nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- U T