Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39764/2018dismissed

Prem Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-31Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39764 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -433 Year- 2017 Thana -DANAPUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Prem Choudhary S/o Late Laldeo Choudhary, R/o Vill.- Purandarpur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhisekh Anand, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Kumari, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 31-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 14.01.2018 in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 433 of 2017 for the offence registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120(B)/34 and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Chairman of the N.G.O. had been promising jobs to innocent persons and had been taking money for making appointments to various governmental/non-governmental posts and in lieu thereof, huge amounts had been taken from the applicants and he had in league with his associates, defalcated the same.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39764 of 2018 (4) dt.31-07-2018 2/2 Learned counsel for the informant submits that the matter is not so simple as that of taking money to provide jobs but the petitioner, being the Chairman of the said N.G.O., had also proceeded to issue fake appointment letters and some were even of the District Court, Patna. The matter was enquired into and at paragraph Nos. 127 and 136 of the case diary, it has come to light that the petitioner was squarely responsible for such acts. Diary of the present case was called for which has since been received.

Learned counsel for the State, after perusal of the case diary, submits that the matter is of very serious consequence and hence, the petitioner being the Chairman of the organization is not entitled to privilege of bail.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U