Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43283/2016rejected

Nagendra Kumar Singh @ Nagendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-05Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43283 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -127 Year- 2016 Thana -DALSINGHSARAI District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Nagendra Kumar Singh @ Nagendra Singh son of Jagdish Singh, Resident of Village-Maharaja, P.O.-Bhatauli, P.S.-Shahpur, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madan Jeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajkishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 127 of 2016 registered for offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation has been made, Rs. 83,000,00/- (eighty three lacs) was taken away by the petitioner from the Volt Box of the Bank Branch and except Rs. 8,00,000/- (eight lacs), rest money i.e. Rs. 75,000,00/-(seventy five lacs) has been recovered. As per the argument of the petitioner, the Cashier is equally responsible, but he has not been made an accused in the present case and the money has not been recovered from his house whereas the counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43283 of 2016 (2) dt.05-10-2016 2/2 has taken the key from the pocket of the Cashier smartly, opened the Volt Box, took away Rs. 83,000,00/- (eighty three lacs), hired a 'Boloro' vehicle at Rs. 3,500/- and fled away with the aforesaid money. Except Rs. 8,00,000/- (eight lacs), rest money i.e. Rs. 75,000,00/-(seventy five lacs) has been recovered and the same has been released in favour of the concerned Company. It has further been submitted by the informant that the money has been recovered on disclosure of the fact by the wife of the petitioner, which has been refuted by the counsel for the petitioner.

Be that as it may, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T