Kumar Rajbardhan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25087 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2020 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== KUMAR RAJBARDHAN S/o Sri Chandra Mouli Prasad Resident of VillageDhanar, P.O. and P.S.-Ekangarsarai, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Diwakar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahua P.S. Case No. 292 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case in brief is that petitioner fraudulently withdrawn huge amount from different accounts while working as Single Window Operator Clerk at Central Bank of India, Mahua Branch, Vaishali.
It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has committed no offence and the Chief Manager Central Bank of India, Mahua Branch, Vaishali who has himself withdrawn the entire amount has falsely implicated this petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is Clerk and was operating the Single window where maximum amount for withdrawal is fixed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25087 of 2020(4) dt.19-01-2021 2/2 at Rs. 20,000/- only and maximum deposit is of Rs. 25,000/- only. Moreover, FIR has been lodged after much delay. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, as stated in para 3 of the petition.
However, learned APP vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that during course of investigation, this petitioner has confessed his guilt that he had withdrawn Rs. 24,00,000/- from the account of CDPO, Mahua and CDPO, Goraul for his personal necessity and deposited Rs. 24,00,000/-. Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T