Md. Wasim Ahmad @ Wasim Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2021 Thana- BISFI (PATAUNA) District- Madhubani ====================================================== MD. WASIM AHMAD @ WASIM AHMAD S/o Late Md. Samshuzzoha R/o - Parasuni, P.S.- Bisfi, Distt- Madhubani at present Mohalla- Pathantoli, Bajitpur, Mahdauli, P.S.- Town and Distt- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kuldeep Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-02-2023 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bisfi (Patauna) P.S. Case No.57 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the informant as well as 170 signatories of the FIR had invested their hard earned money in Bhartiya Shakh and Bachat Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. on the assurance that their invested money would become double in five years. Some other branches of the said co-operative limited have also been opened. The petitioner was Managing Director of that institution. The informant handed over Rs.10,50,000/- in the hand of co-accused, Imteyaz Ahmad, who was Manager of that institution. A raid was conducted in another branch of that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46 of 2023(2) dt.07-02-2023 2/2 institution and thereafter the informant and other investors stopped investing their money in that institution. On persistent demand of the investors, the invested money was not refunded to them despite the fact that co-accused, Imteyaz Ahmad had assured them to refund their entire money.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got criminal antecedents as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail petition. It is further submitted that no specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by submitting that prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused, Imteyaz Ahmad has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2022, passed in Cr. Misc. No.2304 of 2022. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T