Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44743 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2018 Thana- DARBHANGA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== RANJEET KUMAR YADAV S/o Ram Parikashan Yadav R/o villageMainapatti, P.S.- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-10-2019 This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Darbhanga Town P.S. Case No. 248/18, disclosing offences under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65, 66(B), 66(D) and 67 of the I.T. Act. Prosecution case is that petitioner was the employee of Writer Safeguards Private Limited, which is engaged in cash management service and used to deposit the cash in ATM machines of Government and Non government banks through MSP and on 07.12.2018, the informant received a letter from Corporation Bank as well as from the F.I.S. stating that from one of the ATM of Corporation Bank situated at GM Road, Income Tax Chowk, Darbhanga, an amount of Rs. 2,94,82,500/- was defalcated during the period from November 2017 to November 2018. It is alleged that during the said period, the petitioner and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44743 of 2019(3) dt.01-10-2019 2/2 other five persons were custodian and were ATM operators and they have tampered with the ATM machine and misappropriated huge amount as they have password also.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has falsely been implicated in this case and no specific allegation has been attributed to him. It has also been submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and ready to cooperate with investigation.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner rather petitioner may surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail and if any such application is filed, the court below will dispose of the same on the basis of materials available on record, without being prejudiced by this order.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T