Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63108 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2016 Thana- SHAMBHUGANJ District- Banka ====================================================== PRINCE KUMAR Son of Sri Bijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Kaitha, P.S.- Shambhuganj, District- Banka, Pin- 813211 ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his/her arrest in connection with Shambhuganj P.S. Case No. 07 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation made in the FIR, the Chairman of the PACS, its Manager and the Members of the Executive Body had withdrawn the money for purchase of paddy and wheat but despite the withdrawal of the money, the purchased wheat and rice was not sent to the State Food Corporation rather it was sold out in open market.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63108 of 2021(2) dt.19-07-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is Manager of the PACS and he is innocent. The Chairman of the PACS was granted regular bail from the court of learned Sessions Judge, Banka, on his assurance that the entire money withdrawn by the PACS would be deposited.

On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. for the State has submitted that the petitioner being the Manager of the PACS is responsible for entire transaction. He has submitted further that despite the assurance given by co-accused still the amount has not been deposited.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and also considering the prima facie complicity of the petitioner, he does not deserve the privilege for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T