Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41513/2016dismissed

Md. Saddam Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-14Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41513 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -66 Year- 2016 Thana -KASBA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Md. Saddam Hussain S/o Md. Taiyab @ Taifu, Resident of village - Khajha, P.S. K. Nagar, District - Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Garh Banailli Branch, Purnea .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sahin Begam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and counsel for the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Kasba P.S. case No.66 of 2016 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 408 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the court of A.C.J.M.-cum-Sub Judge II, Purnea.

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioner misappropriated huge amount of the Bank. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused due to mistake of fact. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are denied by the petitioner. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41513 of 2016 (4) dt.14-12-2016 2/2 petitioner is a generator operator. He had no concern with the affairs of the Bank. The petitioner does not claim the Bank deposits made in the account of the petitioner and his associates. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The money has been transferred in the account of the petitioner and his associates with intention to make wrongful gain. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Anyhow if the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T