Rana Rudra Pratap Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3843 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2019 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Rana Rudra Pratap Singh, aged about 48 years, male, Son of Ramjee Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. - Bhabua, Ward No. 1, Police Station - Bhabua, District - Bhabua (Kaimur). At present Assistant, the Sasaram Bhabua Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch - Bhagwanpur, District - Bhabua (Kaimur).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-09-2021 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 237 of 2019, dated 24.12.2019, instituted for the offences under
2/4 Sections 409, 420 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no accounting for forty six lakhs of rupees (Rs. 46,00,000) in the ledger of Bhagwanpur Branch of the Co-operative Bank. The petitioner, at the relevant time, worked as an Assistant in the aforesaid Branch of the Cooperative Bank along with one Branch Manager and a Peon. Hence, the accusation against him is of conspiring and siphoning the aforesaid amount from the Bank. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the basis for lodging the F.I.R. is the Internal Inquiry Audit Report in which it has been shown that there is a mismatch of account, but it is attributed to the fact that the Branch Manager himself was working as a Cashier. The report, referred to above, indicated dereliction of duty on the part of the Branch Manager.
This Court was informed on the last occasion that the Branch Manager of the concerned Branch had applied for anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 3484 of 2020 and was granted interim reprieve on his assurance that he shall deposit the entire amount which has not been accounted for
3/4 in different installments. An extension of time also has been given to him for making the payments. Considering the aforesaid order of a Bench of this Court, the Peon who also was made an accused in this case has been granted interim protection.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the entire investigation, no act of omission or commission has been attributed against him and he has been made accused in this case merely on account of his employment at that time in the aforesaid Branch of the Bank.
Considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioner has been granted provisional bail vide order dated 30.07.2021.
For the reasons afore-stated, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner is, hereby, confirmed. He shall remain on the same bail-bonds.
However, the petitioner is directed to participate in the investigation fully and any attempt on his part to avoid the investigative process, would render his bail liable to be
4/4 cancelled.
The application stands disposed off accordingly. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- U T