Rajat Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81610 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2019 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan ====================================================== 1.
Rajat Pandey, Son of Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Resident of 645 a/1216, Sarswatipuram Colony, P.S.- Madiyava, District - Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Pin Code - 226021.
2.
Vinay Prakash Singh @ Vinay Singh, Son of M. P. Singh, Resident of - E - 3124, Rajajipuram avas Vikash Colony, P.S.- Talkatora, District - Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Pin Code - 226017 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anjana, Wife of Sudhanshu Shekhar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jagjit Roshan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 114 of 2019, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 506 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation is that complainant-informant, Anjana, being the proprietor of M/S Ridhi Siddhi Enterprises, used to run service centre and doing the authorized work of Xiaomi Flax Tonic Technology India Pvt. Ltd. In very short period, the centre of the complainant/informant got name and fame in the market. The auditor of the aforesaid company
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81610 of 2019(4) dt.01-07-2020 2/3 audited her account time to time and the account was found well. In 2018, Rajat Pandey (petitioner no.1) came at her service certre as Field Service Manager and seeing her handsome earning, he demanded share in the earning but the complainant/ informant refused to pay then he moved from there giving threatening to stop the service centre. On 15.09.2018, Rajat Pandey (petitioner no.1) himself again came for audit and by manipulation in documents, he imposed Rs.2,68,989/- in his audit report as penalty. Then she made protest through proper channel to the higher authority. Thereafter, the aforesaid penalty was reduced to the tune of Rs.22,176/- then she informed to Vinay Singh (petitioner no.2) but he refused to help her. As such, due to mischief of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, she suffered mental agony and loss of Rs.60,00,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact, the audit in question was done under the instruction of the company and the representative of the informant was present at the time of audit and also put his signature on the audit report but with ulterior motive, the present case has been lodged with false allegation. Further submission is that petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81610 of 2019(4) dt.01-07-2020 3/3 case, let the above named petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in connection with Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 114 of 2019, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T