Pratul Kumar Chandravanshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80170 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-988 Year-2020 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== Pratul Kumar Chandravanshi S/o- Sreekant Prasad Chandravanshi @ Shreekant Prasad Village - Ujain , Daraundha,P.S - Daraundha , District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rajiv Kumar Yadav Son of Ramji Yadav, Branch Manager RBI Finance Serve, Branch, Madhaura Madhaura, Dist- Saran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramadhar Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s:

Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with a case registered for the offences under Sections 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The allegation in the First Information Report was with regard to the fact that the petitioner, who was a Senior G.L.O., in RBL Finmserve, Madhaurah Branch, had collected Rs.82,110/- and had deposited Rs.40,000/- from that amount in the account of his mother in March, 2020, and further he did not reply to the legal notices sent to him.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80170 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2025 2/3 committed any offence and as a matter of fact he had taken a loan of Rs.40,000/- in the name of his mother and had never embezzled any amount. It would appear in the earlier orders passed in the present case that the petitioner has prepared a demand draft of Rs.40,000/- in favour of the informant's company and attempted to hand over the same at his office but the same was not accepted. In view of his submission that he was ready to hand over the demand draft to the informant, the informant was added as opposite party no.2 and notice had been issued. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Today, the counsel for the petitioner has produced the demand draft of Rs.40,000/- but the same cannot be handed over to the opposite party no.2 as nobody has appeared to receive the same.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner proposed that the draft may be deposited in the Nazarat of the learned Court below and from there the informant would receive the same. 6.

In view of such offer, let the demand draft of Rs.40,000/- be deposited by the petitioner in the Nazarat of the learned Court below and information be also sent to the opposite party no.2, by the learned Court.

7.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80170 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2025 3/3 and also that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Madhaurah P.S. Case No.988 of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482

(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) shikha/- U T