Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60126/2024dismissed

Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Bhai v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-30Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60126 of 2024 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40694 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2019 Thana- BARHAT District- Jamui ====================================================== Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Bhai son of Late Dhanpat Prasad VillageRasulpur Po- Chainwa Ps- Rasulpur Dist- Chapra, Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Maheshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2025 Heard Mr. Maheshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barhat P.S. Case No.51 of 2019, FIR dated 30.05.2019 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the petitioner has moved before this Court in Cr. Misc. No.40694 of 2021 for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 16.05.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner has moved in Cr.W.J.C. No.900 of 2021, in which he has been granted stay by order dated 15.03.2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60126 of 2024(3) dt.30-06-2025 2/2 Thereafter, the aforesaid Cr.W.J.C. No.900 of 2021 was dismissed by this Court.

5. It is a case of embezzlement of provident fund amount collected by the petitioner along with others but not deposited in the concerned account number.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits from a bare perusal of the case diary, it appears that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that second anticipatory bail is not maintainable, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner once again in connection with Barhat P.S. Case No. 51 of 2019 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Jamui.

9. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) anand/- U T