Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar BhartiversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The application for anticipatory bail is rejected as a prima facie case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is established.
Summary
Pankaj Kumar Bharti, an employee of Muthooth Microfinance Company Ltd., was implicated in a case (PS Case No. 347 of 2023) for alleged misappropriation of Rs. 376,445 from 268 customers, invoking Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, asserting that he was not authorized to collect loans for the Manjhaul branch and that the alleged fraud was perpetrated by the informant using fake Aadhaar and voter IDs. He further claimed he never received any money from the customers and that the informant failed to identify any specific victims. The court examined the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge, who noted that witnesses corroborated the FIR and that the petitioner, while employed to collect EMIs, allegedly fled with the collected amounts. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
- Whether a prima facie case exists under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner was authorized to collect loan amounts from the customers of the Manjhaul branch.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- misappropriation
- fraud
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- microfinance
- prima facie case
- CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13503 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-347 Year-2023 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar Bharti S/O Sundeshwar Ram R/O village- Mukundpur Bhath,
P.S.- Jandaha, District-Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sagar Kumar Singh Son of- Ashok Prasad Singh Village and post- Bhaddi,
P.S.- Patarghat, Saharsa
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Chand Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
7 11-02-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 347 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023
registered for the offence under Section 406, 420 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the F.I.R. allegation against the petitioner is that the
petitioner being an employee of the Muthooth Microfinance
Company Ltd. misappropriated Rs. 3,76,445/- of 268 customers
of closing and EMI collected by him under the Branch of
Manjhaul Area.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
innocent and he has not committed any offence in the manner
alleged. The petitioner is working at Garhpura Branch Office
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13503 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
under Samastipur Divisional Office and he was not authorized
to collect the loan amount of customers under Manjhaul Branch.
The fact of the matter is that loans were distributed by the
brother-in-law of the informant by using fake Aadhaar and Voter
Cards and informant orally said to the petitioner for collection
of distributed amount of customers under Manjhaul Branch. The
petitioner has not received any amount from the customers of
Muthooth Microfinance Company Ltd. under Manjhaul Branch.
The informant has not mentioned the name and address of any
customer who has claimed against the petitioner. The informant
has not produced any kind of receiving of said amount by the
petitioner from any customer under Manjhaul Branch.
5. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties,
taking into consideration the fact that learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Manjhaul has taken note of the fact that
witnesses in paragraph nos. 2, 6 & 7 in verbatim have supported
the statement made in the F.I.R. and in paragraph no. 19 i.e.
supervision note it has come that petitioner was employed by
the said company for providing loan to rural women group and
collecting EMI and closing loan account after receiving the
same but instead of depositing the collect amount in the
company the petitioner fled away with it, accordingly, taking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13503 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
into consideration the nature of allegation and prima facie
finding arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge, I do not
find any reason to differ with it, accordingly this application for
grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…