Ajmal Ansari @ Chhotu Ansari @ Chhote Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7889 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2020 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== 1.

Ajmal Ansari @ Chhotu Ansari @ Chhote Ansari Son Of Abdul Latif Ansari R/O Village- Kolhar, P.S.- Narayanpur, Dist.- Jamtara (Jharkhand) 2.

Asgar Ansari Son Of Abdul Latif Ansari R/O Village- Kolhar, P.S.- Narayanpur, Dist.- Jamtara (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyadeo Singh Yadav, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent, petitioner no.2 has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that he is a salaried person having an account in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhabhua. It is next alleged that on 08.05.2020, he received a message on his mobile that an amount of Rs. Eleven

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7889 of 2021(11) dt.20-06-2023 2/2 Lakhs has been withdrawn when the same was not withdrawn by him. It is further alleged that earlier on 06.05.2020 also, Rs. Ten Thousand was withdrawn from his account through ATM at Mughalsarai when the same was also not withdrawn by him. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, further during the investigation nothing has come which could even remotely connect the petitioners with the offence. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that during the course of investigation, the name of the petitioners transpired and their address is Jamtara, the investigation is going on and in the event if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners would abscond.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Their prayer for anticipatory bail is thus rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T