Kumar Harsh Deep v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18878 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2022 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== KUMAR HARSH DEEP S/o Shri Deepak Kumar Residing at Mohalla- Opp. Post Office, Anishabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar Mr.Aalekh Ananda Mr. Sanchay Srivastava Mr. Ravi Prakash ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2023 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 K.Hat (Maranga) P.S. Case No. 59 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal is Area Manager of Ergos Business Solutions Private Limited. As per allegation, there was shortage of 160 metric tons of foodgrains from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18878 of 2022(5) dt.17-01-2023 2/2 godown of the company, to which the petitioner was custodian. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was custodian, only for a year. The case was lodged after five months and he resigned from the company on 28.09.2021.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the godown was under custody of the petitioner and in his show cause reply, he has admitted that he will sort out matter and he disclosed the reason for shortage that due to some misunderstanding between the petitioner and one Md. Jakir, the shortage occurred.

In my view, it is not a fit case 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) Nirmal/Kundan U T