Lal Babu Kumar @ Lal Babu Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54916 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2017 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== LAL BABU KUMAR @ LAL BABU KUMAR YADAV Son of Chandeshwar Yadav Resident of village - Mananpur Nawada, P.O. and P.S.- Gobindganj, District - East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jainendra Kumar Pushkar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, petitioner along with other accused persons has defalcated an amount of Rs. 45,67,000/- by false credit loan.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54916 of 2022(3) dt.21-02-2023 2/2 omnibus in nature. He further submits that the specific allegation of defalcation is against Amit Kumar Singh and Rahul Kumar, who were Branch Manager and loan provider, respectively. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner for helping the main accused persons are false and concocted. It is evident from the fact that petitioner had himself informed the Regional Manager about Amit Kumar Singh when he left the Branch on 09.08.2017 through telephone. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the inquiry report has supported the prosecution case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T