Stephan Murmu @ Stiphan Murmu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9874 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1715 Year-2012 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka ====================================================== Stephan Murmu @ Stiphan Murmu Son of Marcus Murmu R/O-VillagePaharpur, PS- Suiya, District- Banka the then Postmaster Domuhana P.S. - Katoria, Distt.- Banka ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Bhujo Nadaf Son of Late Kanhay Nadaf Resident of Village- Domuhan, P.S.- Banka, Distt.- Banka ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr.Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party :
Mr.Binod Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The complainant, namely, Bhujo Nadaf alleged that he had deposited Rs.1,20,000/- in his Post office saving account no. 1103473 and a passbook was issued to him by the petitioner who was posted as postman in the said post office. Later, when the complainant went to withdraw money, he was informed by the post master Abhay Kant Jha that on 31.05.2011, Rs. 1,11,500/- had already been withdrawn fraudulently by this petitioner. Despite repeated request and legal notices, neither the withdrawn amount nor her pass book was returned to the complainant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9874 of 2025(4) dt.23-06-2025 2/2
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. On the date of withdrawal of the money from the Post office, petitioner's service was put under suspension. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he being post man, defalcated Rs. 1,11,500/- of the complainant by illegally withdrawing it from his savings account.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T