Satish Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23201 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -355 Year- 2017 Thana -BIRAUL District- DARBHANGA ======================================================
1. Satish Kumar Rai Son of Shivjee Rai Resident of Village Dekulidham, P.S. - Biraul, District - Darbhanga.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vasudeo Ram For the BSFC : Mr. Lal Muni Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-07-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner, already in custody since 14.10.2017, seeks bail in Biraul PS Case No. 355 of 2017 registered under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC.
The allegation in brief is that the petitioner was Chairman of the concerned PACS purchased paddy from the farmers from government money worth Rs. 39,93,952.05 but the same was not transmitted to District Manager of BSFC and has misappropriated the said amount.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than nine months, after cut off date rice was not received by the BSFC and in other similarly situated cases some coordinate Benches of this Court have granted anticipatory bail to such kind of accused.
Whereas learned Counsel appearing on behalf of BSFC submits that the petitioner used government money for purchasing paddy and about forty lakh rupees was misappropriated. Having considered the said facts and circumstances, particularly the nature of offence, the Court is not persuaded to grant
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23201 of 2018 (6) dt.18-07-2018 bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within a period of one year and if the trial does not conclude within the sti9pulated period the petitioner may renew the prayer for bail.
(Arun Kumar, J) Snkumar/- U T