Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14242 of 2012 ====================================================== Luna Srivastava @ Binita Srivastava .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.15340 of 2012 ====================================================== Girish Chandra Samaiyar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02/ 27-04-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, the State and the informant. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . The informant being the Sector Manager of Sahara India a non-banking organization alleged that after audit it came to the light that the Franchise holder Niraj Kumar Srivastava in league with the petitioners committed several financial irregularities and thereby misappropriated Rs.1,13,92,754/-. It is alleged against Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14242 of 2012 (2) dt.27-04-2012 2/5 the petitioners that they were employed by Franchise holder Niraj Kumar Srivastava, hence, they are party to the misappropriation. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner Luna Srivastava that she has only been roped in because she happens to be sister of principal Franchise Niraj Kumar Srivastava. Annexure- 2 reflects that Niraj Kumar Srivastava jwas appointed as principal Franchise, whereas Annexure-3 reflects that several supporting persons were appointed under Niraj Kumar Srivastava but no document reflects that Sahara India has ever employed this petitioner but this petitioner has been implicated to put pressure on the main accused Niraj Kumar Srivastava. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner Girish Chandra Samaiyar that in the FIR there is no accusation against this petitioner nor it suggests that this petitioner was ever appointed by Sahara India. It is submitted by Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant that both the petitioners were employed by principal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14242 of 2012 (2) dt.27-04-2012 3/5 Franchise Niraj Kumar Srivastava, moreover Girish Chandra Samaiyar admitted in the complaint lodged by him against Luna Srivastava that he worked as field worker for seven years and this admission also gets reflected from the submissions made before the learned court below. It is further submitted that it has come during investigation that Luna Srivastava used to operate the bank account of several investors when she was arrested in Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 159 of 2011 she admitted here involvement. Moreover, it is a question of misappropriation of huge public money and the petitioners are trying to dispose of their properties at Patna as they have shifted from Patna also. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, nature of accusations, it appears that the thrust of accusation is against Niraj Kumar Srivastava and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners were employed by informant’s company, it appears that the thrust of accusation is against Niraj Kumar and there is nothing on the record to suggest that these petitioners were employees of the informant company, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14242 of 2012 (2) dt.27-04-2012 4/5 let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 05 of 2012, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and on the conditions that (i) bail bonds of the petitioners will be accepted on filing of an affidavit that they will regularly appear before the investigating agency; (ii) they will not disposed of their property without prior permission of the learned court below. The order will be transmitted to the investigating officer concerned who will submit before the learned court below a time frame to interrogate both the petitioners within two weeks of receipt of this order. The same time schedule will be served through learned court below on respective counsels for the petitioners within two days of the receipt of the time frame. The consecutive defaults by the petitioners in appearance Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14242 of 2012 (2) dt.27-04-2012 5/5 before the investigating officer will give liberty to the prosecution to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioners. DKS/ (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.