IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31093 of 2011 Rajeev Ranjan , Son of Sri Deen Bandhu Singh, Resident of Village – Parao Pokhar Amgola, P.S. – Kazimmohammadpur, District – Muzaffarpur …………. Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ………………… Opp. Party ---------------------------------- 3 24.10.2011 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Anusuya Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who apprehends his arrest in Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 176 of 2011 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471/34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 43/66 of the Income Tax Act, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made accused only on statement made by one of the main accused in whose account the fraudulent amount was transferred and deposited. He submits that the co-accused namely Shyam Kumar Singh was account holder in the Syndicate Bank in which account amount from State Bank of India was got transferred and he himself had withdrawn the amount and the petitioner has falsely been made accused in the present case. From the F.I.R. it appears that from the account of Aristo Pharmaceuticals a huge amount i.e. amounting to Rs. 12,50,00,000/- was got transferred to two different accounts one situated in a Bank at Ranchi and another at Muzaffarpur in the account of Shiv Shakti Trader proprietor of which was co-accused 2 Shyam Kumar Singh and thereafter amount was withdrawn by Shyam Kumar Singh. It appears that after investigation charge sheet was submitted against some of the accused persons and investigation on other point is still going on. Earlier case diary was called for and same has been received. On perusal of the case diary it is evident that co-accused Shyam Kumar Singh was examined by the Investigating Officer. He had disclosed the complicity of the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that huge amount was fraudulently withdrawn by accused persons conspiring with each other, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)