Rajendra Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50888 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2019 Thana- KARPI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== RAJENDRA JHA S/o Late Narayan Jha R/o village and Post- Mohan Pali, P.S.- Khajauli, District- Madhubani, Asstt. Manager, (Contract- basis) T D P S Godawn Karpi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Srivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the BSFC and learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Karpi P.S. Case No. 259/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Arwal.

The allegation against the petitioner is for defalcating huge amount of Rs. 1 Crore and 42 lacs and odd. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50888 of 2021(4) dt.21-06-2022 2/2 falsely implicated in this case due to hierarchy in system. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that from perusal of the case diary it is evident that there is no material against the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the BSFC and learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is of defalcating huge government money, hence the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order considering the fact that in the case diary no material has been found against the petitioner. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T