Sunil Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18431 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2020 Thana- DHURAIYA District- Banka ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA SON OF NARESH MISTRY @ NARESH SHARMA R/O VILLAGE- KACHRATI, P.S.- DHORAIYA, DISTRICTBANKA. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Nandad Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 61 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per FIR, the Electricity Department has given contract to M/s Mega Calibre Enterprises Pvt. Ltd for meter reading and collection of electricity bills. It was found that forged electric bills were given to the consumers and the money was received after issuing forged receipt Nos. 258554655YBF24558 & 258554655YBF24558. After enquiry it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18431 of 2021(2) dt.21-01-2022 2/2 was found that those receipts were not issued by the Department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is only meter reader and he had deposited the money which was received by him from the consumers. It is not a simple case for collection of money, so even if it is deposited by the petitioner, it does not exonerate him the charges against him. There is serious charges that forged and fabricated bills were issued to the consumers and the money received was misappropriated.

Considering these facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T