Jitendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40641 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2019 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BALDEO SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHIKHANPURA, P.S-DESRI DISTRICT-VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR 2.

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE ADHAYA SINGH R/O VILLAGESAWARNGADH, P.S-CHANDRA MANDI, DISTRICT-JAMUI AT PRESENT AREA MANAGER PASUPATI ROAD CARRIER PRIVATE LTD., BANCH MUZAFFARPUR, MOB. NO.7631962255.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh Mr. Govind Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, petitioner was posted in the Company as Branch Manager-cum-cashier and he committed fraud of Rs. 7,46,620/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that details of defalcated amount has not been mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner was posted as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40641 of 2021(6) dt.15-09-2022 2/2 Branch Manager-cum-Cashier and, therefore, he has no authority for transaction and signature of this petitioner was forcibly taken by the higher authorities. The salary of the petitioner is due for which petitioner filed Complaint case No. 622/2019 and the present case has been instituted as counter blast of that case in order to grab the salary of the petitioner. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.

Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegation against him that he defalcated huge amount of the company.

Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T