Jai Prakash Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64679 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2021 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== JAI PRAKASH JHA SON OF LATE ANANT JHA R/O - KOMAL NAGAR, MIRJANHAT, P.S.- MOUJAHIDPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Davendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 419, 420, 120(B) / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner, who was at the relevant time posted as Branch Manager in South Bihar Gramin Bank in Dharhara Branch, had sanctioned loan to some fictitious persons on the basis of false documents and thus, caused loss to the tune of Rs. 7,33,560/- (Seven lacs thirty three thousand five hundred sixty) to the bank.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion and there is no evidence to show his involvement in the said case. Loans were sanctioned to the persons concerned only on the recommendation of concerned B.D.O. Petitioner granted loan

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64679 of 2021(3) dt.06-07-2022 2/2 only to three persons, who obtained Rs. 25,000/- each as loan, and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from the said branch and after his transfer, the successor Branch Manager had sanctioned loans. Now, the petitioner has retired from the service of bank and aged about 68 years.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail petition and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and during course of investigation, sufficient material has come against him.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and same is, accordingly, rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T