Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40319/2017dismissed

Surendra Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-01Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40319 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -155 Year- 2011 Thana -TRIVENIGANJ District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Surendra Choudhary Son of Late Rameshwar Choudhary, R/o VillageKatar, P.S.- Indrapuri, P.O.- Badiha, Shankarpur, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Mohammad Shabbir Alam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Yogendra Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 01-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned Additional Public Prosecutor of the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Triveniganj P.S. 155 of 2011 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that co-accused, Nandlal Ghosh induced the informant to invest an amount of Rs. 6000/- in his National Royal Care Scheme and he will get Rs. 10,000/- The petitioner and other accused persons named in the F.I.R. were present at that time. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused persons collected Rs. three lacs fifteen thousand from the complainant and others and money was deposited in different

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40319 of 2017 (2) dt.01-09-2017 2/2 schemes as mentioned in the complaint petition. It is also alleged that they again came on 15.12.2010 to that place and gave different offers to the unemployed youth regarding different scheme, but when the informant and others people made demand of the amount as per scheme then all the accused persons avoided and gave threat of dire consequences.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the specific allegation against the petitioner of inducing the common people and misappropriating their money, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail is rejected with a direction to the petitioner that if the petitioner surrender in the Court below within four weeks and make prayer for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J) Sudha/- U T