Tribhuwan Ram v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51100 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -174 Year- 2013 Thana -KARAHGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Tribhuwan Ram, Son of Late Ram Desh Dhobi, Resident of VillageBonga, P.S.- Chauparan, District- Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand), previously Block Welfare Officer, Shivsagar cum Karif Puchase Centre Incharge, Kargahar, Rohtas (Sasaram).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. District Manager, Rohtas, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ramchandra Sahani ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 174 of 2013 registered under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 120B of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of C.J.M., Sasaram at Rohtas.

The allegation against the petitioner and two others is of misappropriation of 14218.40 quintals of paddy, of which estimated cost of Rs. 1,77,73,000.00.

Submission is that petitioner was deputed as Incharge of Purchase Centre, Kargahar, Rohtas. He wrote several letters to the Officers of State Food Corporation and D.M. for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51100 of 2016 (5) dt.15-02-2017 2/2 lifting of the paddy crop so that it can be procured, but the concerned authority did not take steps in this regard. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation of misappropriation of paddy crop against him.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Shail/- U T