Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90185 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-644 Year-2019 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chaudhary Son of Rambriksh Chaudhary Resident of Village- Morenisf, PS- Maniyari , District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and B.P.I.D. Act.

3. The petitioner along with other co-accused is said to have defalcated the money of the customers deposited in the Company Swarn India Multi Estate Credit Cooperative Society Limited.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged Swarn India

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90185 of 2024(4) dt.17-03-2025 2/2 Multi State Credit Cooperative Society Limited and co-accused Anil Chaudhary was one of the Directors of the said Company. Petitioner has been made accused in this case as he is the brother of the said Anil Chaudhary. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has nine criminal antecedents and has been languishing in custody since 16.01.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of the offence and the criminal antecedents, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at present.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Trivedi/- U T