Ramuchit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31622 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2021 Thana- GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR DistrictSiwan ====================================================== RAMUCHIT KUMAR Son of Sri NathunRaut Resident of village - NandanBigha, Ward no. 01, Post - Murgaon, P.S. - Hulasganj, Distt. - Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rohit Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with G.B. Nagar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2021, registered for the punishable under Section 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per allegation, when a development programme sponsored by the World Bank was going on under Rural Livelihood Project Mission in the District of Siwan for the upliftment of Rural Jeevika Samposit Samuha, the petitioner being a community coordinator, collected Rs. 23,16,120/- from Jeevika Mitras and he did not deposit the said amount in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31622 of 2023(10) dt.21-06-2024 2/2 Bank.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was rejected but as a matter of fact, the petitioner is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated by the informant. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Jehanabad District and his duty was neither to collect the amount nor to deposit the same to the bank.
5. The Investigating Officer recorded the evidence of a number of Jeevika Mitras in the case diary and in their statements in different paragraphs of the case diary, they have specifically stated that it was the petitioner, who collected the money from them and he did not deposit the same in the bank.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T