Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63467 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2017 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH Son of Late Shivnath Singh Resident of Village - Bangra Pashim Tola, P.S. - Mashrakh, District - Saran at Chapra. 2.

Raju Kumar Singh Son of Late Shivnath Singh Resident of Village - Bangra Pashim Tola, P.S. - Mashrakh, District - Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jeetendra Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, petitioners and other accused persons were running a Company, Ascene India Industries Limited and were collecting money from the investors on promise of lucrative interest. The informant deposited Rs. 3,10,000/- in the company of which the company used to pay interest but later on they stopped payment of interest. On 30.06.2016 the informant came to know that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63467 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2022 2/2 Company has cheated the investors and defalcated the amount. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that money was deposited in the branch office of the company and not in the hands of these petitioners. Petitioners were agents of the company and there was no intention of the part of the petitioners to cheat the investors. No case u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC is made out against these petitioners. Petitioners claim clean antecedent. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioners were running the company and defalcated the amount collected from the investors.

Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T