Rambabu Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69873 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2020 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rambabu Jha Son of- Deoki Nandan Jha R/o Village- Pataili, Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sagupta Praveen D/o Md. Waseem R/o Village- Makiya, P.S.- Benipatti, District- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-03-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 69 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 102-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution story, complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- each in two account in the Basaith Franchisee Office of the Sahara India. The deposits were to mature on 31.12.2019 with maturity amount of Rs. 26,120/-. On 10.01.2020 on being asked for the maturity amount, petitioner informed the complainant that his maturity amount has been withdrawn earlier.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69873 of 2024(4) dt.22-03-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent, committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. On 03.07.2019 petitioner was transferred from Tajpur sector to benipatti sector under Muzaffarpur Zone, he joined there on 18.10.2019. Again on 04.03.2020 he was transferred to Samastipur. He further stated that the petitioner was never posted in the Basaitha Branch Office where the complainant's Account were opened. The petitioner never told the Complainant that her maturity amount has been withdrawn and lastly he submitted that petitioner has left the services of Sahara India now. So, the petitioner has no manner of concern with the affairs.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail.
6. During course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has annexed a report of Branch Manager, Sahara, Pupri regarding maturity amount of the complainant, in which, it is mentioned that still maturity amount is lying in Pupri Branch, Sahara, complainant may withdraw the same. Complainant has also been intimated and negotiated about the same.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, let the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69873 of 2024(4) dt.22-03-2025 3/3 petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt/production of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipatti, Madhubani in connection with Complaint Case No. 69 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) prabhakar/- U