Aditya Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40872 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-969 Year-2021 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== ADITYA KUMAR SINGH S/o Nag Narayan Singh Resident of Shri Ram Colony, Choti Patan Devi Gali, P.S.- Chowk, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-01-2023 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.969 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.11.2021 during the audit, Rs.12,25,500/- was found shortage from different ATM. The petitioner and co-accused, Raushan Kumar and Mritunjay Kumar were doing the work of cash loading in the ATMs. During enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was giving training to co-accused, Raushan Kumar and Mritunjay Kumar. The password of the ATM was available with the petitioner and the petitioner alongwith co-accused, Raushan Kumar and Mritunjay Kumar misappropriated Rs.12,25,500/-.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40872 of 2022(5) dt.30-01-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has got one criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that no specific allegation is made against the petitioner.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that that informant in his re-statement at para 2 and the proposed witnesses in his statement in para 6 and 7 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case.

Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T