Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57637/2024rejected

Brajesh Kumar Ojha v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-16Mr. Justice Khatim Reza2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57637 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2024 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== Brajesh Kumar Ojha, aged about 38 years, Male, son of Surendra Nath Ojha, resident of village -Neem Shiv Mandir, Gadahiya, P.S.- Sikaraul, Distt.- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 16-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Rajpur PS Case No.148 of 2024 dated 11.05.2024, instituted under Sections 409, 511, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 472 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he presented a bill for payment of his arrears salary amounting to Rs.9,87,238/- in the State Bank of India, Buxar Branch, with the forged signature and stamp of the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Buxar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57637 of 2024(3) dt.16-12-2024 2/2 case. Further submission is that petitioner is working as Block Teacher at Middle School, Jalahara Block, Rajpur and the Bank has not disclosed that from whom alleged bill was received. There is delay of four days in lodging the FIR. The petitioner has no knowledge about the said bill which was presented in the Bank for payment of arrears salary of the petitioner.

5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties coupled with the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected.

8. The application stands dismissed.

(Khatim Reza, J) J. Alam/- U T