Rupak Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59126 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2020 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== RUPAK KUMAR SINGH Son of Late Raj Mohan Singh Resident of VillageRajwara, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 17 of 2020 registered under Sections 187, 353, 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner amongst others is of misappropriation of huge amount in selling and purchasing of paddy crops.

In course of supervision, it has also come to the notice that a meeting was held at Panchayat level relating to misappropriation of money of the account holders in which both the accused persons i.e. the petitioner herein and co-accused Arjun Prasad Rai levelled allegation against each other regarding custody of the cash book or the key and as per the investigation both the accuseds are parties to the huge misappropriation of fund.

The case diary was called for in this case to ascertain the actual facts. In the bail application, the petitioner has stated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59126 of 2021(3) dt.18-04-2022 2/2 paragraph-3 that he does not have any criminal antecedent. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State after perusing the case diary informed the Court that not only the witnesses have supported the allegation levelled in the First Information Report regarding misappropriation of fund by the petitioner herein, he further pointed out that contrary to what has been stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application; the petitioner has criminal antecedents and a case was lodged against him in the year 2011 itself vide Case No. 206/2011 (as stated in paragraph-58 of the case diary).

Taking into account the charges that have been levelled in the First Information Report and supported during the course of investigation as also the fact that the petitioner has tried to suppress the fact regarding his criminal antecedent, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to him and the bail application is hereby rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and concluded it at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T