Ram Sewak Mahtha @ Ram Sewak Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38896 of 2014 (2) dt.01-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38896 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -464 Year- 2013 Thana -RUNISAIDPUR District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Ram Sewak Mahtha @ Ram Sewak Mahto S/o Late Mahabir Mehta the then Manager R/o Village Birauli, P.S. Benipatti, District Madhubani and at present R/o Mohalla Mali Ghat Chauk, P.S. Mithanpura, District AND Town Muzaffarpur, State Bihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Meena Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Runisaidpur P.S. Case No. 464 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner being the then Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Mehsaul committed forgery in distributing Kishan Credit Card in 90 accounts amounting to Rs. 61,94,333/-.

Submission is of false implication and that after five years of his superannuation, he has been implicated and the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38896 of 2014 (2) dt.01-04-2015 petitioner had discharged his duty in accordance with law and procedure but now he has been dragged in this case to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that KCC has been shown to be distributed to the persons who are not living in the village, the land possession certificate and rent receipts are all false and the photographs of the creditors were not identified by the local people or Mukhiya of the local panchayat.

In the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, in case and if so advised, the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail before the court below, then his prayer for bail shall be considered on its own merit on the same day without being prejudiced by the present order. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T