Niraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30941 of 2017 (2) dt.06-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30941 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -304 Year- 2015 Thana -KESARIA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Niraj Kumar son of Bhuneshwar Yadav, resident of Village- Dhanauja, P.S. Fulparas, District- Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-07-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Kesaria P.S. Case no. 304 of 2015 registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. The petitioner admittedly was Branch Manager of non-governmental financial Bank namely, Prime Future IT Solution Private Ltd. who motivated the people to deposit money in his Bank so as to fetch higher interest. In running the said business, he allured all the 19 complainants and a large number of people giving assurance that the money to be deposited by them would get double within a specified period. All the complainants and other investors deposited the money. After maturity of said deposits the same were not given to the depositors and all of a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30941 of 2017 (2) dt.06-07-2017 sudden the petitioner closed the Branch of his company. The petitioner refused to make payment to the complainant and other investors saying that he was an employee of the said Bank. This petitioner admittedly was authorized signatory of his company and had collected money from the complainant and issued bonds under his signature to the complainant and other investors. It further appears that at the time of inquiry a large number of witnesses supported these facts and the case has been found true under the aforesaid Sections.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar, J) rohit/- U T