Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34769/2025bail rejected

Dilkhush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-13Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34769 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2024 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia ====================================================== Dilkhush Kumar S/o Bharat Lal Mehta R/o Village- Raghunathpur, Ward No. 04, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No-80 of 2024, dated-02.04.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Petitioner/accused was employee of the informant, bank and as per the allegation, he has misappropriated Rs.2,34,936/- by not depositing the amount after collection of the loan amount from the customers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case, in fact, he has deposited the amount in the bank. However, he has not got the receipt, and hence, he has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34769 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 2/2 implicated. However, charge-sheet has already been submitted. He admits that charge is yet to be framed.

5. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 06.02.2025.

6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.

8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

9. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

10. The petition is dismissed accordingly.

11. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.) Chandan/ Md. RashidU T