Babulal Sahani v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.57951 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -387 Year- 2017 Thana -NAUTAN District- WESTCHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ====================================================== Babulal Sahani S/o Late Asarfi Sahani Resident of village- Rudalpur, P.S.- Nautan, District- West Champaran .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
Petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No.387 of 2017, registered under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation in brief is that the petitioner who is SubPostmaster in the village received the money deposited by the informant and entered the amount in the pass-book but the same was not deposited with the Sub-Post Office and misappropriated Rs.27,000/-. It is alleged that with other depositors the petitioner had committed such type of offence.
Submission is that the petitioner had deposited the amount but the Sub-Post Office had not recorded it. However, the petitioner is ready to pay back Rs.27,000/- to the informant.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57951 of 2017 (3) dt.18-01-2018 2 /2 Having considered the said facts and circumstances and the nature of offence that petitioner being a government employee misappropriated the amount, at present the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No.387 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, District West Champaran, Bettiah. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial after framing of the charge and preferably conclude the same within six months. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated time, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Arun Kumar, J.) S.Kumar/- U T