Vikash Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30792 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2021 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar ====================================================== Vikash Mishra S/o Krishna Mishra R/o Village-Barkagaon, P.S.-Buxar (Ind.), District-Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-09-2022 Heard both parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Buxar Muffasil P.S. Case No. 364 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case in brief is that informant being Territory Collection Manager, Buxar during his working period found that petitioner who was working as Field Collection Executive, collected Rs. 1,34,356/- from customers as monthly installment for the period 18.12.2019 to 11.01.2020, but he neither gave acknowledgment receipt nor deposited their money in their credit accounts. It is further alleged that out of total amount of Rs. 1,34,356/-, petitioner deposited only 36,500/- and rest amount of Rs. 97856/- has been misappropriated by him. It is submitted that petitioner has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30792 of 2022(2) dt.29-09-2022 2/2 implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, petitioner collected only Rs. 36,500/- and the same has been deposited in the account of customers. None of the customer came forward to make any complaint against the petitioner.

Counsel for State however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation of misappropriating the amount collected from the customers.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the 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