The petitioner was apprehended under Sections 420 IPC, “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”, section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” This petition is in connection with Taraiya PS Case No. 31 of 2020 dated 29.01.2020.
In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 31st of August 2021 in the case of Munindra Kumar Srivastava @ Munindra Kumar versus the state of Bihar, criminal miscellaneous No.37140 of 2020 Ms Namrata Mishra represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Arun Kumar Pandey represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the informant has accused the petitioner of fraud because when he contacted the petitioner who was then a branch manager of the Punjab National bank in Narayanpur Branch, the petitioner was accused of transferring money from the loan account of the informant to the co-accused. The informant was required to hand over all relevant documents to co-accused one Mr Vikash Kumar Singh. It was held that Rs. 2,00,000 was transferred the sanctioned from the loan account to the co-accused and the bank sent a notice to the petitioner for the recovery of the money, but when the informant contacted the co-accused, he admitted that the money was taken from the informant’s bank account and agreed to return the money with interest.
The counsel representing the petitioner held that as the branch manager of the bank he was not involved in the direct role with regard to the transaction of the money, the counsel held that the petitioner sanctioned the loan to the informant Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana as it was for his telecom/mobile business however the petitioner submitted that on written advice of the informant, the amount was credited to the co-accused who supplied articles to the informant. The counsel held that this matter has been compromised with the co-accused and informant and joint compromise petitioner has been filed and the same has been affirmed on the 20th of July 2021.
The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioner who was the Branch Manager of the Bank was solely responsible for the transfer of the money from the loan account of the informant to the co-accused. However, it was not controverted that there has been a compromise between the parties which has been brought on record.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that “the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 1973 (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, and (ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”