Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18571 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2016 Thana -SAKRA District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Manoj Kumar son of late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village & P.O. Karja, P.S. Karja, District Muzaffarpur, at present Pachayat Sachiv, Sakra Block in Gram Panchayat Raj, Katesar, District Muzaffapur, .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Navin Kr.Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 09-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the First Information Report has been lodged with respect to nonproduction of records of appointment of Shiksha Mitras in 2003 and 2005. It is further contended that the petitioner was posted in 2012 and it would be apparent from Annexure 2 that he was never incharge of the documents mentioned in Annexure 4. It is also contended that he is in Government job having been posted as Panchayat Secretary.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the abovenamed petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar, be released on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18571 of 2016 (2) dt.09-05-2016 bail in the event of arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today in Sakra Police Station Case No. 53/16 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten Thousand Rupees) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, subject to the conditions laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, the petitioner would be required to cooperate with the investigation of the case.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) SC/- U T