Kumar Navin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24392 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2016 Thana -WARSALIGANJ District- NAWADA ====================================================== Kumar Navin Son of late Ram Anugrah Prasad Resident of VillageMurgiyachak, PS Warisaliganj District Nawada .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. P.N.Pandit, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-08-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Warisaliganj P. S. Case No. 14 of 2016 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant being the secretary of Kisan Information Counselling Centre, Warisaliganj, Nawada alleged that sixteen cheques were missing from his office, out of which two cheques bearing no. 2137 and 8990 for Rs. 1,15,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- were withdrawn respectively.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant made request to the bank official to show the CCTV footage with regard to the withdrawal of the money and after perusing the CCTV footage, the petitioner was seen withdrawing Rs. 12,000/- bearing cheque no. 8990. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had gone to the office of the informant for receiving the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24392 of 2016 (3) dt.05-08-2016 2/2 subsidy amount. The informant asked him to accompany Naresh Kumar, said to be the staff of the office with him. The petitioner accompanied Naresh Kumar to the bank who put his signature on the cheque at the time of receiving the cheque. The photocopy of the cheque is also annexed to the F.I.R. and it would appear that the petitioner did not put his signature rather Naresh Kumar put his signature at the time of receiving of money and also put mobile number. It is submitted that the mobile number does not belong to the petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid and that the petitioner did not receive any money nor put his signature on the cheque at the time of withdrawal of money rather Naresh Kumar put his signature and mobile number at the time of withdrawal of money, the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Warisaliganj P. S. Case No. 14 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Mishra/- U T