Pankaj Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19654 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2016 Thana -BARUN District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar, s/o Narendra Kumar Singh proprietor of M/s Maa Durga Rice Mill Barun resident of village Udina P.S. Barun District Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Manager Bihar State Food Corporation, Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhayachal Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K.Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-06-2016 Heard Sri Bindhayachal Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Pandey, learned A.P.P. as well as Sri Mayank Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner, seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a rice miller and there was no occasion for the petitioner to commit an offence of misappropriation. He alternatively argued that petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail after accepting deposit of certain amount. Sri Bindhayachal Singh further submit that till date the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 40,15000/- and he has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19654 of 2016 (3) dt.29-06-2016 2/2 argued that besides lodging F.I.R. certificate case has already been initiated against the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail. Sri Pandey, learned A.P.P. submits that it is a case of misappropriation of about Rs. 89 lakhs and odd. He submits that in a deep rooted conspiracy offence was committed by the accused person.

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that this petitioner is named as accused in the F.I.R. and the nature of accusation, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T