Pankaj Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61947 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-426 Year-2015 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA Son of Madan Lal Gupta Resident of Village - Shastri Chowk, Bahaiuran Sthan Raod , Banka, P.S.- Banka, Distt.- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajay Mukherjee For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-01-2023 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Banka P.S. Case No.426 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner who was Branch Manager of a non-banking company, namely, Sun Shine Global Company Ltd. collected money from 2984 investors/depositors by way of cheat and forgery. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has got one criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner was the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61947 of 2022(2) dt.10-01-2023 2/2 Branch Manager of Sun Shine Global Company Ltd. The said company was being operated by one Tej Narayan Chandra and Md. Mukram, who are responsible for all liabilities. It is submitted that all the money collected from depositors/investors was deposited in two accounts, i.e., SBI Sagal Purnia A/c 31071164499 and Axis Bank Sagal Purnia A/c 316010200609355.
Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was made accused in the present case in the year 2015, but he has filed the anticipatory bail application in the year 2020.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T