Uday Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50349 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2019 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan ====================================================== Uday Prakash Singh Son Of Late Ramjee Singh Resident Of Village- Lahegi, P.S. M.H. Nagar, District - Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sharan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 26-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Central Bank and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. As per FIR, the allegation against co-accused Niraj Kumar who has taken loan from Central Bank of India Pachurakhi Branch, Siwan for a sum of Rs. 70 lack for construction and distribution of a project in the name of Jyoti

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50349 of 2019(10) dt.26-09-2022 2/2 Sudh Water.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and he has been implicated only because he is father of co-accused Niraj Kumar. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Central Bank oppose the prayer for bail and submit that petitioner and one supplier Awbnindra Kumar have misappropriated the loan amount of Rs. 70 lakh and they have produced false documents to the bank.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Pachrukhi P.S. Case No. 24 of 2019. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T