Tauqeer Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47192 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2016 Thana- GOH District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Tauqeer Ahmad, Son of Masroor Ahmad Resident of Kabeer Mohalla - Nawadih Road, P.S.- Aurangabad (Town), Distt - Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Aurangabad, through its District Manager, Aurangabad, Bihar 3.

The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Aurangabad. Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shakib Ayaz For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offence under Sections 406,409,420,467,468,471,504 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant who is Proprietor of the rice mill has leveled allegation that under agreement he supplied 1620 bags of rice to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. Against that he received 1570 bags of paddy and for remaining 879.85 quintal of paddy he was given challan to get the same from Goh Paddy Procurement Center.. However, the remaining paddy was never supplied to him by the Paddy Procurement Center.

Submission is that the In-charge of Paddy Procurement Center, Goh, Devendra Kumar has already been allowed bail by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47192 of 2019(2) dt.01-08-2019 2/2 coordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure- P/3. The petitioner was simply a Computer Operator in the B.S.F.C. office. He has no business to do anything in the matter of supply of paddy or rice.

Learned counsel for the State submits that perusal of the case diary would be necessary because from the impugned order it is not clear regarding the specific role attributed against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the aforesaid fact, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Goh P.S. Case No. 53 of 2016, with following conditions:

(a) Both the bailors shall be the resident of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court below having immovable property in his name.

(b) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. (Birendra Kumar, J) khushbu/- U T