Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47599/2016disposed

Mukesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-11-24Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47599 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -525 Year- 2015 Thana -DANAPUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Mukesh Kumar son of Late Kishore Prasad resident of village - Jhunjhunwala Road, Danapur Cantonment, P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal son of Shri Krishna Prasad Jaiswal resident of Sadar Bajar, near Danapur Police Station, P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 24-11-2016 Heard Mr. Amrit Abhijat, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner prays for grant of Anticipatory bail in Danapur P.S. Case No. 525 of 2015, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The distributor of Hindustan Uniliver Limited, submitted the written report that the petitioner being the collection agent of the firm against the delivery made by the informant to the retailer(s) shop collected huge amount of money but did not account for and deposited the same. The allegation is that Rs. 10,50,000/- was misappropriated by him.

Counsel for the petitioner states that it is a matter of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47599 of 2016 (3) dt.24-11-2016 2/2 accounting. The collection made of the bit of Shiv Chandra Ram was deposited with Shiv Chandra another employee of the informant. In a case like it where the issue pertains to settlement of the account the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. oppose the prayer and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having misappropriated huge amount of the company.

In my considered view, it is not a fit case for grant of Anticipatory bail. The prayer is accordingly rejected. The petitioner shall surrender before the court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) siddharth/- U T