Om Prakash Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31714 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2019 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ====================================================== Om Prakash Sah S/o Late Ram Prasad Sah Resident of Village - Taranagar, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Abhishek Kumar Sunni Son of Arun Poddar Resident of Mohalla - Sahebganj, P.O. - Champa Nagar, P.S.- University, District - Bhagalpur. At present Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Gulabbag, Branch Purnea.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP For the Bank :

Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate Mr. Amitesh Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 30 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as collection agent of the Bank and he collected the amount from customers and has not deposited the collected amount in Bank account of the account holders and prima facie the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 18,43,270/- from the different account holders.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has appointed as collection agent and and was collecting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31714 of 2019(3) dt.22-08-2019 2/2 daily deposit from the customer, he further submits that total amount of defalcation does not mentioned in the case diary. Heard learned A.P.P. also who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the misappropriated amount was calculated during course of the investigation and further submits that the money collected by the petitioner from the account holders was not deposited in the bank. Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner may move before the learned court below for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below on its own, without being prejudiced by order of this Court. With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) S.Katyayan/- U T