Karunakar Mallik v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16279 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2012 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Karunakar Mallik Son of Late Lok Nath Mallik Resident of Village- Rehang, P.O.- Kuligaon, P.S.- Khantapara, Distt.- Balasore (Odisha) and at present R/O- Matha Sahi, P.S.- Bhadrak, Distt.- Bhadrak, State- Odisha ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tejendra Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-05-2025 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, 471 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner being Branch Manager of Union Bank, Parbatta branch, in between 14.12.2009 to 6.7.2010 sanctioned loan to 51 loanee on the basis of forged LPC and rent receipts amounting to Rs.27,99,584/-.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the matter is said to be of in between 14.12.2009 to 6.7.2010 but after filing supplementary case diary in 2023, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16279 of 2025(3) dt.07-05-2025 2/2 However, cognizance was not taken till 17.1.2025. He submits that for the aforesaid allegation, after conducting a departmental proceeding, petitioner had been awarded punishment of forfeiture of three increments finding him guilty for negligence but there was no finding about any embezzlement of public money. Moreover, he has no mechanism to verify genuineness of documents filed by applicants for grant of loan. Petitioner is suffering from severe old age ailments and is under treatment since 2016. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that in the present case, FIR was lodged in 2012 and this anticipatory bail petition has been filed by the petitioner in 2025 without any explanation.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation as well as unexplained delay in filing of the bail petition, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U T