Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47749/2016rejected

Sulendra Chouhan @ Surendra Chouhan And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2016-11-09Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47749 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2016 Thana -CHEWRA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. SULENDRA CHOUHAN @ SURENDRA CHOUHAN, S/o Musafir Chouhan, R/o Village-Baran Bigha, P.S-Chewara, District-Sheikhpura.

2. Sanjay Chouhan, S/o Late Kaleshwar Chouhan, R/o Village-Baran Bigha, P.S-Chewara, District-Sheikhpura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 09-11-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners are facing prosecution in Chewara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016 registered under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and has approached this Court for grant of regular bail.

The petitioners are accused of misappropriating huge amount of money collected from innocent depositors as agent of a private company. The owner of the company is also accused of the Case. The allegation is that they collected huge amount of money from different depositors including the informant and thereafter absconded and created their own property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also the agents of the company. It is the company

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47749 of 2016 (2) dt.09-11-2016 2/2 which cheated the depositors. The petitioners are in custody since 20.07.2016.

Learned APP while opposing the prayer submits that in course of investigation, the witnesses have supported the case made out in the First Information Report. It is a case where huge amount of savings of the villagers have been cheated/misappropriated by the petitioners.

Considering the allegations leveled in the First Information Report and other materials reflected from the records, I am not persuaded to extend them the privilege of bail. The prayer is rejected.

However, the petitioners are granted liberty to renew their prayer for bail in the court below itself, if the trial does not record adequate progress within five (05) months.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) rohit/- U T