Shivvachan Ram @ Shivbachan Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36816 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2012 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Shivvachan Ram @ Shivbachan Ram, Son of Bindeshwar Paswan Resident of Village - Kara Tole, Rashe Bigha, P.S.- Obra, Dist.- Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ambika Ram, Son of Sri Dudheshwar Ram Resident of Village - Koshadihara Patralaya Padrawa, P.S.- Jamhore, Dist.- Aurangabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Leelawati Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.167 of 2012, in which cognizance under Sections 420, 409, 120B, 467, 468, 149 of Indian Penal Code has been taken by learned Magistrate.

The allegation against the petitioner as per the complaint lodged by the complainant, Ambika Ram, who is Panchyat Secretary that complainant handed over charge in favour of petitioner. On 30.07.2010 the petitioner in connivance with the husband of Mukhiya has withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- from the account of Panchayat.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36816 of 2019(4) dt.27-09-2019 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with oblique motive. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of handing over charge, the charge of cheque book of the concerned bank account was not handed over to the petitioner by the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that on the similar allegation, FIR was lodged by the concerned BDO in which petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on account of the fact that no charge pertaining to the bank account in question was handed over to the petitioner by the complainant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner has defalcated a sum of Rs. 4,35,000/- in connivance with the husband of Mukhiya and withdrawn the amount in question on the basis of forged signature of the complainant.

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that all the amount has allegedly been withdrawn by the petitioner after the complainant has handed over charge to the petitioner and in identical matter,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36816 of 2019(4) dt.27-09-2019 3/3 this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the provision bail granted by this Court dated 17.06.2019 be confirmed, subject to terms and condition as aforesaid and the bail bond furnished by the petitioner earlier shall be treated to the bail bond furnished by the petitioner pursuant to this order.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U T