Vishwash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11701 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-755 Year-2024 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ====================================================== VISHWASH KUMAR S/O DINESH THAKUR R/O VILLAGE-LAL PARSA BADHARWA, PS- SUGAULI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN MOTIHARI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate Ms. Isha Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. A perusal of the FIR would go to show that an amount of Rs. 49,51,000/- was embezzled from the office of CMS Info System Limited Company which was found out by the Auditor of the Company Mr. Dharmendra Kumar in presence of Branch Manager of Route A.T.M. Mr. Nilesh Kumar and trainee custodians Nilesh Kumar and Vishwas Kumar. It is further alleged that accused Deepesh Kumar and Vishwas
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11701 of 2025(5) dt.20-06-2025 2/3 Kumar (petitioner) were appointed by the Company at Motihari Branch and both were custodians who had to withdraw money directly from SBI Main Branch, Motihari and CBI, Main Branch, Latuha Raja Bazar and deposit in the A.T.M. of Route1. It has further been alleged that the petitioner and Deepesh Kumar stopped coming to duty after 18.11.2024 and thereafter, the embezzlement of amount was detected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner is general and vague in nature and as a matter of fact, the petitioner and co-accused Deepesh Kumar were only the cash custodians. No transaction was made from the employee code of the petitioner. It is also argued that the petitioner was not on duty since 16.10.2024 and fresh appointment was made on 18.11.2024. Further, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was only an employee of the Company and he never worked as cash manager and hence, never committed any fraud with regard to the cash. The materials collected during the course of investigation also do not disclose any specific or concrete evidence to connect the present petitioner to the alleged occurrence. It has rather transpired from paragraph 24 of the case diary that no money was recovered from his house when a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11701 of 2025(5) dt.20-06-2025 3/3 search was made. It is next submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted in the case and the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024 without any criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State, however, opposes the prayer for regular bail.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and the period of custody, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 755 of 2024.
7. However, it is directed that the petitioner would cooperate in the trial and make himself physically present in the court on each and every date and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T