Gorelal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47492 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2014 Thana -SHAMBHUGANJ District- BANKA ====================================================== Gorelal Yadav Son of late Banarsi Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Bela, P.S. Sambhuganj, District- Banka.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 19-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Shambhuganj P.S. Case No. 92 of 2014 dated 12.09.2014 instituted under Sections 406/409/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that due to his lapse, the Bank had suffered loss of Rs. 2,10,400/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual fault was that of one Chandan Kumar who was the incharge Cashier against whom the petitioner had also written. However, as far as the mistakes which are committed by the petitioner, two persons have lateron deposited Rs. 49,000/- and 25,000/- as the same had been wrongly withdrawn by them. It is further submitted that there was never any complaint against the petitioner in the past and many persons

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47492 of 2014 (2) dt.19-05-2015 2/2 have given a certificate in support of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that the specific finding in the enquiry is that the petitioner had made entries in the register which have been found to be erroneous leading to loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,10,400/- and even on the own showing of the petitioner only Rs. 74,000/- has been deposited that too after lapse of many months and thus the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T