Ramendra Kumar Raman @ Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10841 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-584 Year-2024 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Ramendra Kumar Raman @ Pappu Yadav S/o- Mahendra Narayan Yadav R/o- W.no- 2, Itahri Ratanpura Ps- Ghailardh Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, representing the informant beside learned APP.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 584 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 29.05.2024 by the informant, Dr. Shanti Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story, complaint lodged by the Chairperson, Indian Red Cross Society, Madhepura (henceforth for short 'the Society'), the petitioner was earlier serving as the Secretary of the said "Society" and the allegation of financial embezzlement as also deleting/adding the members in the society in irregular manner is/are there. Further, despite direction, he chose not to return the official laptop. This led to
2/4 the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only due to the grudge, the Chairperson along with the District Magistrate, Madhepura ensured his removal. Against the said decision, the appeal of the petition is pending before the Indian Red Cross Society, Bihar Chapter, Patna. The further submission is that that to show his bonafide, the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to 'the Society' by the Demand Draft issued by the local branch of State Bank of India. Further, the petitioner wants to sit across the table, look into the grievances of 'the Society' and make them understand about the innocence.
5. Learned counsel representing the informant submits that a perusal of the F.I.R. would show that there is allegation of embezzlement against this petitioner which forced 'the Society' to remove him. The allegation of high handedness on her part as also the District Magistrate, Madhepura is/are baseless and only to save his skin.
6. Though the allegation is there and the denial is also not there in clear terms in the petition, in view of the fact that he has shown his desire to cooperate with 'the Society' Office Bearers to show his innocence and is ready to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the F.I.R. is there, he shall be facing the music,
3/4 in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to 'the Society' by Demand Draft issued by the local branch of State Bank of India and the receipt has to be submitted before the Trial Court.
7. Needless to say that the said payment will be the subject to the final outcome of the final order of the learned Trial Court in the present case.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 584 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., as also with the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her
4/4 bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T