Ritik Raj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72561 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2021 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas ====================================================== RITIK RAJ Son of Ugrah Singh Resident of Village and P.O.- Pawani, P.S.- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas. At present- Railway Colony, in fornt of IN residence, near over Bridge, Dehri, P.S.- Dalmiya Nagar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the impugned order. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution case in a nutshell is that during enquiry, the informant found the accused Ritik Raj who was posted as Team Leader has committed a embezzlement of Rs. 4,71,945/- by way of delivery of goods manually and found him (petitioner) guilty.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is only a Team Leader and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72561 of 2021(3) dt.06-07-2022 2/2 goods were not delivered by him and the property in question is not entrusted to him.
Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted from the impugned order that it is a criminal breach of trust relating to a huge and hefty amount of Rs. 4,71,945/-. He further submits that several witnesses during investigation have supported the prosecution case.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U