Suman Shekhar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32478 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2026 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger ====================================================== Suman Shekhar S/O Raj Kumar Gupta R/O Vill./Mohalla- West Azimaganj Hawali Khagragpur, P.s.- Khagrapur, Dist.- Munger. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Anil Kumar S/O Late Shiya Ram Sah Branch Manager, Panjab National Bank, Hawali Kharagpur Branch Munger, Permanent add.- Vill.- Zeromile Chowk, P.S.- Barari, Dist.- Bhagalpur.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhat Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the 'B.N.S.').

3. As per FIR, the informant, who is a bank manager of Punjab National Bank, Haveli Kharagpur, alleged that the petitioner being a senior CSA under Employee ID No. 5180437 of the same Branch has manipulated the money of customers in the banking transactions and embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,02,28,500/-, out of which Rs. 78,25,000/- has already been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32478 of 2026(3) dt.21-07-2026 2/3 recovered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that due to rural branch, the real transaction was not maintained in computer, therefore, account was not tallied during the audit. It is submitted that the issue is related with the audit of accounts.

5. It is pointed out that no complaint of any customer was ever made against this petitioner, rather learned counsel drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure P/3 series, where almost eight customers, who received their payment with delay, have already given no objection in favour of this petitioner saying that they have no complain against the petitioner.

6. It is further submitted that when after audit, the amount, which was mismatched, was tallied to the extent of Rs. 78,25,000/- out of Rs. 1,02,28,500/- and this amount is not the amount, which was recovered or paid by this petitioner rather it was with the bank/customers only. Petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32478 of 2026(3) dt.21-07-2026 3/3 taking note of the fact as the issue primarily appears related with audit, where Rs. 78,25,000/- has already been said matched with suspected misappropriated amount of Rs. 1,02,28,500/- coupled with the fact that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent, accordingly, above-named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger/concerned court in connection with Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.S."). (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/- U T