Somnath Chattarjee @ Somnath Chattopadhyay v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34331 of 2017 (2) dt.27-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34331 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -227 Year- 2015 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Somnath Chattarjee @ Somnath Chattopadhyay, S/o Madhusudan Chatopadhyay, Resident of Village- Benali Koliyari, P.S. Jamuriya, District- Vardhman (West Bengal).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad. Mr. Umeshanand Pandit For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajendra Singh Shastriji For informant : Mr. Kamlendra Prasad. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-07-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 227 of 2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that on his instance informant has deposited more than Rs. 5,00,000/- lakh in the scheme run by other co-accused persons, in which the petitioner is said to be the development manager.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case. He only happens to be one of the employees of the company, namely, A.B.S. Gold and at best

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34331 of 2017 (2) dt.27-07-2017 the allegation can be made that he canvassed for the said company. Further petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has remained in judicial custody for more than two months. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner's role in the said fraud cannot be ruled out as another case has also been lodged for giving cheque, which has bounced. Having heard both sides, considering the fact and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T