Manoj Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87303 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2023 Thana- JHAJHA RAIL P.S. District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Pandey Son of Late Chandrashekhar Pandey Village -Hanuman Nagar PS -Bariyatu Distt- Ranchi Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms/Mrs. Khushi Awadh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 395/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, informant alleged that two months before, one Sukul Sao contacted the informant and told him that he will get licence regarding Coal Mines in Jharkhand for which informant will have to invest crores of rupees. Thereafter, informant reached Ranchi from Haryana and met Sukul Sao at Chanakya Hotel. It is further alleged that Sukul Sao asked the informant to return by flight after verifying the documents like Bank balance sheet, voter id, PAN etc. and said that one Madam will come at his house to verify him and thereafter he will get the licence. On 18.02.2023 one Sara Madam reached the house of informant and told him that he will

2/4 get licence. Then informant gave Rs. 50 lacs in cash to Sara Madam. It is further alleged that again on the request of Sukul Sao, informant deposited Rs. 10 lacs on 17.03.2023 in account of Indian Bank of Sukul Sao. Thereafter, on 29.03.2023 informant came at Deoghar with his uncle Jasvir Singh to meet Sukul Sao. Sukul Sao met with informant at reached in a Hotel at Tower Chowk, Deoghar and told him to give 40 lacs rupees in that account. Money was deposited online. After 15-20 minute, Sukul Sao told him that he cannot get licence of coal mines and he returned his money in two trolley bags holding two man Mukesh Thakur and Tanik Verma. Both of them came with informant at Jasidih Railway Station and boarded the train with informant including his uncle in Madhupur Anand Vihar Express.

When the train arrived at Jhajha Railway Station, then four police personnel came and tried to search informant's trolley bag which was resisted by the informant. It is alleged that Mukesh Thakur and Tanik Verma threatened the informant to return Delhi, otherwise he will be killed and four police personnel fled away with trolley bags. During investigation, it has been detected that on 17.03.2023, Rs. 10 lakh was transferred by informant to the account no. CA-7156026362 of Indian bank whose holder's is Lok Vikash Bindu institution.

3/4 Said amount was transferred on the same date (17.03.2023) through cheque no. 57322 to account no. 39360130449 of ICICI Bank and holder of account no. 39360130449 is the petitioner. Para 22 of the case diary reflects that petitioner is Secretary and Beena Devi is Chairman of Lok Vikash Bindu Institution.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Petitioner is Secretary of the Lok Vikas Bindu which is an NGO works for preservation and welfare of the people in need. Its affair is looked after by Beena Devi who is President of the said NGO and one Vinay Uraw is its treasurer. Only material that has come during investigation is that Rs.10 lacs was transferred in the account of said NGO on 17.3.2023. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that during investigation, it has been detected that on 17.03.2023, Rs. 10 lakh was transferred by informant to the account no. CA-7156026362 of Indian bank whose holder's is Lok Vikash Bindu institution. Same day, said amount was transferred to the account of petitioner. Para 22 of the case diary reflects that petitioner is Secretary and Beena

4/4 Devi is Chairman of Lok Vikash Bindu Institution.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T