Arbind Kumar Paswan @ Arvind Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80255 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Arbind Kumar Paswan @ Arvind Kumar Paswan S/o- Shri Sonelal Paswan R/o- Ward no 18, Bhagwatipur Pohiyar District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Regional Office, Muzaffarpur Region, Muzaffarpur Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP For O.P. No. 2 (B.O.B) :

Arvind Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kr. No. 1, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 (Bank of Baroda).

2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No.92 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable u/s 409 and 420 of IPC.

3.

As per the F.I.R., the named accused persons are said to have been found indulged in misappropriation of amount of Rs.1.25 crore by committing illegal and fraudulent transaction in the bank.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to grudge. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80255 of 2024(3) dt.17-01-2025 2/2 fairly submitted that anticipatory bail application of some of the co-accused persons have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 77686 of 2024. It is also submitted that there is some difference between the case of co-accused persons and the petitioner's case. Petitioner's ID was used twice by the another person. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner is also involved in the present case. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T