← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22525/2016dismissed

Debanand Mandal v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-05-20Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22525 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -212 Year- 2015 Thana -KOILWAR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Debanand Mandal son of Late Jamdni Kant Mandal resident of MohallaNawal Kishore Road, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation through its M.D., Bihar at Patna.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

20-05-2016 Heard Sri Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Koilwar P.S. Case No. 212 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is true that F.I.R. was lodged against the then Assistant Manager, S.F.C., Koilwar, Bhojpur on an allegation of misappropriate of Rs. 3,49,42,353.80/- (three crores forty nine lacs forty two thousand three hundred fifty three & paise eighty) in relation to disposal of huge quantity of food-grains, the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22525 of 2016 (2) dt.20-05-2016 2/2 was not named as accused in the F.I.R. He further submits that petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 27-12-2014 and as such, there is no reason for implicating the petitioner, however; only on the basis of supervision note that petitioner had omitted to check the record, the petitioner has been made accused.

In view of the fact that it is a case of misappropriation of huge amount and also the fact that petitioner was holding an important post, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T