Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60476 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2018 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Kumar Singh S/o Bhartendu Singh, R/o MohallaDandi Bagh, P.S.- Vishnupad, District- Gaya.. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-11-2018 Petitioner prays for bail in connection with Kotwali P.S.Case No. 307 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner, who is computer data operator in the shop of the informant, is of misappropriation of 34,309 bags of Nangar Cement worth Rs.1,13,22,000/- and it appears that petitioner and one Vijay Kumar have confessed their guilt before the proprietor, which appears from the FIR.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has falsely been implicated in this case and co-accused Vijay Kumar, who has confessed his guilt, has been granted anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, which

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60476 of 2018(3) dt.29-11-2018 2/2 appears from Annexure-2 and petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2018.

Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that apart from the fact that petitioner has confessed his guilt before the informant proprietor, on verification by police it appears from paragraphs 35 and 41 of the case diary that huge amount was withdrawn by the petitioner from several bank accounts and that also shows the hand of the petitioner in the case and moreover now charge has been framed and the case is fixed for evidence. Having heard both sides and in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

However, since the petitioner is in custody, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

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