Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18471/2021bail rejected

Bhageshwar Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-20Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18471 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2014 Thana- KISHUNPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== BHAGESHWAR KAMAT SON OF LATE SARYUG KAMAT, R/O VILLAGE- CHAUHATTA, P.S.- KISHANPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-09-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 177 of 2014, registered for offence punishable under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

There is allegation that the petitioner, who was Ex-mukhiya, in collusion with his grandson, who is also accused in this case, has withdrawn Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- for first scheme and Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18471 of 2021(10) dt.20-09-2022 2/2 for second scheme. The petitioner and his grandson without performing the work, misappropriated Rs. 1,35,000/-. By order dated 04.07.2022, the interim protection was directed to remain in operation on the assurance of the petitioner that he would deposit Rs. 1,35,000/-.

Last opportunity of two weeks' time was also given to the petitioner, vide order 23.08.2022, despite the fact that he has not deposited the stipulated amount.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

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

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