Patna High CourtCR. MISC./72841/2025bail granted

Praveen Kumar Jha @ Rakesh Jha v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-28Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72841 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2025 Thana- Mabby District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Praveen Kumar Jha @ Rakesh Jha S/O Sri Maheshwar Jha R/o Village- Behat Uttari, P.S.- Jhanjharpur R.S., District- Madhubani but in the F.I.R. Address is given as Ward No. 3, Lakhnaur, Behta, Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.C. Jawahar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. Jawahar, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned APP for the state submits that case diary in this case has been received. Perused the case dairy.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Mabbi P.S. case No. 75 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that the petitioner, an accountant of the informant's company has committed misappropriation of crores of money by procuring fake vouchers along with other accused persons and distributed the said amount among themselves. Various irregularities were

2/4 found in the ledger of the hotel.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The petitioner denies the allegation made in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vouchers which were part of the F.I.R. were not signed by the petitioner nor issued by him. Referring to statement made in paragraph 21, learned counsel submits that son of the petitioner fell ill and for his treatment, when the petitioner demanded money from the informant, he was badly humiliated and thereafter he resigned and for which he has also filed an informatory petition in the court below. The petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2025 and has one criminal antecedent in which police after investigation submitted final form against the petitioner as stated in paragraph 3 of the application.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Mr. C. Jawahar, learned APP, referring to various paragraphs of the case diary states that witnesses have stated that petitioner misappropriated cash amount by using the forged signatures of suppliers and disbursed the amount among

3/4 accused persons. Learned APP further submits that the petitioner has also confessed his guilt before the police that he has misappropriated huge money. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner by producing fake vouchers misappropriated huge money of the hotel. Hence, he may not be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Mabbi P.S. case No. 75 of 2025 subject to the following conditions:

(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

4/4 witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Pankaj/- U T