Amod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17667 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -108 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHNAR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Amod Kumar, Son of Devendra Rai, resident of village Bhikhanpura, P.S. Desari, District - Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahnar P.S. Case No. 108 of 2016, registered under Section 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIth Vaishali at Hajipur. The allegation of informant Avinash Kumar, InCharge Branch Manager of Vaishali District Central CoOperative Bank Ltd., Mahnar, Vaishali is that on 16.07.2016 one Dipak Kumar, one of the account holders of the bank, gave an application to Managing Director of the bank regarding misappropriation of Rs. 10,11,200/- from his account. Thereafter, two members Committee was formed for enquiry in which statements of 23 account holders were called for and it was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17667 of 2017 (7) dt.02-08-2017 2/2 detected that Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Rai, the then In-Charge Branch Manager of the said bank, Amod Kumar, Contract Clerk (Petitioner) and Hirakant Thakur, Cashier withdrew the said amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Contract Clerk and when he came to know about misappropriation of money through different accounts of the bank, he deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- in the account of said Dipak Kumar.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T