Pramanand Singh @ Pramanand Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 294 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2020 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna ====================================================== PRAMANAND SINGH @ PRAMANAND SINHA Son of Jagdeo Prasad Resident of Adarash Vihar Road No. 1, Ram Krishna Nagar, P.S- Ram Krishna Nagar, Patna 800027 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Kaushal Kishor, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Avanish Kr Singh, Special PP M/s Ambar Narayan, Barkha, Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special PP.

2 The petitioner apprehends arrest in Special Case No 8 of 2020 bearing RC 3 (A) 2020 initially registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act but charge sheet has been submitted adding Sections 468, 471, IPC. 3 As per the prosecution case, in between 2015 to 2017, some unknown public servants of Railways, in connivance with the claimants' Advocate in accidental death cases, cheated the claimants as only part of the decreed amount

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.294 of 2023(14) dt.18-08-2023 2/2 was given to the claimants and major chunk was siphoned by the accused persons.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was junior to co-accused Bidyanand Singh and, as such, he was not aware of the alleged defalcation. He further submits that the petitioner took the money as fees for making pairvi for six long years. It is further submitted that all the money, which is alleged to have been siphoned, has already been returned to the claimants and in support of the same, he has filed supplementary affidavit.

5 Learned Special PP has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is involvement of this petitioner along with other accused persons in the case.

6 Considering the nature of accusation that petitioner was benefited, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) M.E.H./- U T