Ashish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56888 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2025 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== Ashish Kumar Son of Anil Kumar State Head, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office - 4th Floor, AMS Park, Boring Road Crossing, Patna (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Manindra Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 27-08-2025 Heard Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 71 of 2025 instituted under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3) & 340(1) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 lodged on 01.02.2025 by the informant, Nikhil Kumar Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant who himself claims to be the owner/proprietor of Mahakal Enterprises, Aurangabad was nominated through government tender process for sale of 16 ACE Tractors to JIVIKA in different blocks of Aurangabad. The registration and insurance of all the 16 tractors, payments were made for vehicle insurance
2/4 and registration. Later, it appeared that Ritik Ranjan in collusion with transport office agent, Satish Giri created fake TATA AIG insurance papers. It was informed to the state head (the petitioner herein) but they failed to investigate the matter and with the collusion of the accused persons decided not take any steps. The allegation is that Satish Giri, Rishu Raj and Ranjit Kumar fraudulently cheated the informant of Rs. 2,98,000/- in which the role of the petitioner cannot be ignored. This led to the FIR.
4. It is case of the petitioner that he is the head of TATA AIG of the entire State. The insurance papers of the tractors issued to the JIVIKA members upon reaching the desk of the petitioner was found to be forged and fabricated and not issued by its Company. This followed Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 863 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure-2 to the petition).
5. The submission is that on 01.02.2025, as a counter blast, while alleging role of the accused persons, named above, deliberately, the petitioner was was also dragged in. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation and face the music if any role of his crops up.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
3/4 though the allegation is against Satish Giri, Rishu Raj and Ranjit Kumar, the role of the petitioner cannot be ignored.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties as also that the petitioner is the State head of TATA AIG Insurance Company, main role has been assigned to Satish Giri, Rishu Raj and Ranjit Kumar, he has no criminal antecedent, an earlier FIR is there on record (Annexure-2), in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the subordinate court within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 71 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions. (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
4/4 bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available to the police as and when required; (iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T