Rajesh Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74333 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2025 Thana- SIMRI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Paswan S/o Lala Paswan R/o Village- Simri, P.S.- Simri, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das, Advocate :

Ms. Megha Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard Ms. Megha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, learned APP representing the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Simri P.S. Case No. 30 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the B.N.S., lodged on 07.05.2025 by the informant Amar Chaudhary.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the State Bank of India, Singhwara Branch got complaint from the consumers that this petitioner, a CSP Incharge, has illegally encashed their amounts without providing them proper receipt. The Bank gave the names of the complainants and came

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74333 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 2/2 to the conclusion that there is misappropriation of Rs.16,64,000/- and that the petitioner later closed the CSP and escaped. This led to the F.I.R..

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is ironical that the complainants were depositing the amount, not receiving the message from Bank and in that background, the role of the Bank cannot be ignored.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that it is a part of the investigation and if any Bank Employee is also involved, he shall also be made accused but that cannot be the reason for the grant of relief to the petitioner who has misappropriated Rs.16,64,000/- of the poor fellows as alleged.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions as also the allegation that has come against the petitioner, no relief can be extended to him.

7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T