Virendra Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23087 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2009 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Virendra Kumar, Son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad, Resident of Mohallah- Deewan Road, Near Mai Asthan, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Muzaffarpur (Town), District- Muzaffarpur (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chauk, Muzaffarpur842001(Bihar), through its Regional Manager. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Giri For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-06-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Paroo P.S.Case No.109 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is about defalcation of huge amount while working as the Branch Manager of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner and the charges framed in the disciplinary proceeding clearly show that there is no case of defalcation rather the case is of O.D. Loan and not following the procedure. It is also submitted that the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23087 of 2017 (3) dt.28-06-2017 2/2 has now been removed from service , as such he has already suffered a lot and he is in custody for about four months. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides and in view of allegation of defalcation of huge amount, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of seven months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court below, who will consider the same on the basis of materials available at that time and will pass appropriate order without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. At the same time, the S.P., Muzaffarpur is directed to ensure presence of the witnesses in this case so that the trial may be concluded within the period as specified.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U