Saryu Prasad Akela v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43424 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -154 Year- 2016 Thana -HASPURA District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Saryu Prasad Akela, Son of Shri Gangdhari Singh, Resident of VillageBairwana, P.S.- Karpi, District- Arwal. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

29-11-2016 Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner, who was incharge Headmaster of a Government School, has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Haspura P.S. Case No. 154 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not at all case of misappropriation, rather the petitioner has maliciously been made accused, as per instance of the present incharge Headmistress. He submits that under the Right to Information Act, a certified document has been obtained, which shows that there was no case of any misappropriation. He further

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43424 of 2016 (3) dt.29-11-2016 2/2 submits that even during investigation, in paragraph - 15 of the case diary, the fact has come that entire record was not produced during enquiry. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, without misappropriation of any amount, the petitioner has falsely been made accused.

In the F.I.R., there is specific accusation against the petitioner regarding misappropriation of more than 13 lacs in respect of distribution of new uniforms, students' bicycles etc. In this case, while directing for summoning case diary, a Bench of this Court had directed for taking no coercive step against the petitioner. Pursuant to that, case diary has been received and after going through the statement made in paragraph - 4 of the case diary, it is evident that petitioner has been summoned regarding misappropriation.

I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

In view of dismissal, interim order of stay dated 26-10-2016 stands vacated.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T