Raju Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73510 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-419 Year-2023 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== RAJU KUMAR PARMESHWAR MAHTO @ Parmesh Mahto R/o MohallaBaswariya, Gandhinagar, P.S.- Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bagaha P.S. Case No. 419 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bagaha, West Champaran.
3. The petitioner along with other co-accused is said to have defalcated Rs.1,12,92,320/- of 292 customers.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner was working just as an office clerk and he had nothing to do with the collection, deposit and custody of money deposited by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73510 of 2023(4) dt.18-04-2024 2/2 the customers rather he being just a puppet in the hand of Branch Manager of the Bank. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is allegation of defalcating huge amount of money of the Bandhan Bank, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T