Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61827 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2021 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== CHANDAN KUMAR Son of Rajeshwar Thakur Resident of Village Khiri Banauli Khurd, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rudra Deo For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Mufasil P.S. Case no. 02 of 2021 instituted for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, informant is Location Manager in HDFC Bank. His bank is providing group loan to weaker women of the society. For the year 2017 and 2019, this work was provided to the petitioner and other two co-accused persons, who were working for sales and collection department. Petitioner in collusion with these two persons have violated the amount fixed deposit and embezzled Rs. 671642 of bank.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61827 of 2021(2) dt.28-06-2022 2/2 Duty of the R.M. was to open the account of women who belongs to weaker section. Petitioner came to know the same during his duty period that R.M. has opened some fake account in the name of fake customer, who has withdraw the amount with the help of R.M.. There is no trace of that person so sales officers are unable to recover the loan amount. There is no any hand of the petitioner in the alleged crime as the concerned area is not under the duty area of the petitioner.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender in connection with Mufasil P.S. Case no. 02 of 2021, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Gaya subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U