Ram Chandra Rahi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40694 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2019 Thana- BARHAT District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

RAM CHANDRA RAHI S/o Late Panch Dev Tiwary Ex- Director, Shram Bharati Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khadigram,Jamui, P.S.- Barhat District, Jamui at present Chairman, Rastriya Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Rajghat, New Delhi.

2.

Kapil Deo Singh S/o Late Ram Prasad Singh Ex- Secretary, Shram Bhartati Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dhadigram, Jamui, P.S.- Barahat, District- Jamui Resdent of Shree Ganesh Pravawati Encalve, Shivpuri, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.

3.

Krishna Kumar Bhai @ Krishna Kumar S/o Late Dhanpat Prasad EXTreasurer, Shram Bharati, Drishi Vigyan Kendra, Dhadigram, Jamui, P.S.- Barahat District- Jamui, Resident of Rasulpur, Via- Ekma (Chhapra) Saran P.S.- Rasulpur, District- Saran.

4.

Lokendra Bharativya S/o Gyan Prakash Ex- Director, Shram Bharati, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khadigram, Jamui, P.S.- Barhat, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Maheshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 16-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of embezzlement of provident fund amount collected by the petitioners along with others but not deposited in the account number concerned.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40694 of 2021(3) dt.16-05-2022 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners have got clean antecedent.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that after perusal of the case diary, it appears that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the petitioners.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T