Raja Rai @ Raja Roy v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65440 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-529 Year-2021 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== RAJA RAI @ RAJA ROY son of Late Gopal Roy R/o- Kazichak Road Kali Asthan Near Coal Depo, Bhagalpur Ps- Musaidpur Bhagalpur A/P- tenant in the house of Umesh Yadav, Shivpuri Colony Ishak Chak Near Gayatri Mandir Ps- Musaidpur Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Purusottam Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in short is that informant gave a report to the S.H.O, Gandhi Maidan p.s. alleging therein that the informant claiming himself as Manager of B.S Enterprises and the Proprietor of the said firm is Anup Kumar and the said Firm is a distributor ship firm and doing business as C & F agent of many companies. It is further said that the goods are being distributed to the dealers through the agent of the firm who takes orders. It is further, said that Raja Rai and Dhiran Kumar Magadhiya are doing work as marketing agent of Nisha Mehandi company and they took orders from the dealers and on
2/4 many occasion both are responsible to deposit collected money in the accounts of the firm against the said orders. It further alleged that both the persons placed fake orders in the account of the firm and sold the goods in the marker. It is also further alleged that they did not deposit the said amount in the account of the firm and kept the same due to which the firm suffered financial loss. It is further. said that when the firm learnt their unethical act then they given an undertaking on 08-04-2021 to return Rs. 29,39,713 to the proprietor of the firm namely Anup Kumar till 30-04-2021 but they did not return the said amount. It is also alleged that in year 2020 a foul play was come to the notice of the firm by computer operator Ashish Kumar Sinha for which Gandhi Maidan p.s. case No. 69/2021 was instituted and in that very case also there was hand of both persons and the said amount is executed from those amount which was embezzled with Ashish Kumar Sinha
4. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case only because petitioner was working as Area Sales Manager in the Prem Heena Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (in short "company") and several other persons were working under the petitioner as sale representatives. The company was dealing in the business of
3/4 different hair colours in the name of Nisha Mehandi. The only role of the petitioner was to deliver goods of the company to different dealers as per the orders placed by the marketing agents and for this, the company was getting certain percentage as commission and unless payment in advance was made in account of the firm, no goods was to deliver to any dealer. All accounts were maintained by staffs of the firm (B S Enterprises) and neither the company nor the petitioner had any role in maintaining accounts. From the F.I.R., it is apparent that Aashis Kumar Sinha, who was Computer operator of the firm (B S Enterprises) embezzled huge amount of the firm, for which, Gandhi Maindan P.S. Case No. 69 of 2021 was lodged against him by the present informant. As such, there is no material against this petitioner to connect him with this case.
5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail petition and submitted that this petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused, embezzled huge amount. In this regard, an agreement was made between the parties, but both the accused persons violated it. The accused persons had taken order for delivery of goods in the name of Firm and sold out it in the open market and did not deposit the amount in the fund of the firm.
4/4
6. Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T