Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pappu Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53713 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1655 Year-2023 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pappu Kumar Singh S/o Late Nagendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Baranti, Police Station- Raja Pakar (Baranti OP) in the Distt. of Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Pravin Kumar Singh S/o Late Sanjay Kumar Singh Resident of VillageBaranti, Police Station- Raja Pakar, Distt.- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of his arrest in Vaishali Complaint Case No.1655 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution case in short is that the named accused person Pappu Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh (petitioner-cum-proprietor) and Narendra Kumar Singh both came to the complainant and on their belief and assurance the complainant opened two accounts in Samiti and deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in Account
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53713 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 2/3 No.292-80 dated 11.06.2013 and amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in Account No.320-113 dated 16.01.2014, as such, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was deposited in both the accounts. It is further alleged that the complainant was not allowed to withdraw his deposited amount. Further, on 18.06.2023 when the complainant went to demand his deposited money from the accused persons including the petitioner, then they denied to give any penny and threatened him of dire consequence and also slapped him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that it was Narendra Kumar Singh who was the Manager of the Samiti and it was he who was responsible for approaching the complainant for getting the money credited in the aforesaid account and petitioner being proprietor was not even aware of the misdeeds of Narendra Kumar Singh.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that off late, it has become rampant in the State of Bihar that such Samities are being opened and thereafter poor villagers are made to understand that they will get good returns on their investments and in lieu whereof innocent investors invest money and subsequently such organization shut their business and misappropriate all the credited amount. The learned A.P.P. next submits that Narendra Kumar Singh Singh @ Narendra
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53713 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 3/3 Kumar had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.53901 of 2024 and the same was allowed by a learned Coordinate Bench by an order dated 28.08.2024 on the ground that the complainant in his solemn affirmation has specifically stated that he had deposited money amounting to Rs.2.5 Lacs in 2013 and Rs.2 Lacs in the Year 2014 in the monthly income scheme and the money was handed over to this petitioner. Further, in the complaint or solemn affirmation nowhere it was mentioned that Narendra Kumar Singh ever received any single penny from the complainant. The learned A.P.P. thus submits that in the nature of allegation as alleged, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T