Pramod Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7713 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2017 Thana- BAUSI District- Purnia ====================================================== Pramod Thakur, S/o Late Sainik Lal Thakur @ Samik Lal Thakur Khamic Lal Thakur, R/o - village- Khoksa, P.S.- Baisi, Distt.- Purnia. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Baisi P.S. Case No. 229 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC.

It is alleged in the written report that the Government of Bihar has deposited Rs. 6,000/- in the account of informant as a flood relief fund, but when she went to enquire about the balance, she found her account balance was zero. Thereafter, she asked about the withdrawal of the amount from bank staff. The bank staff told her that the amount of relief fund was withdrawn from the account and showed the withdrawal slip which bear thumb impression of the beneficiary and signature of Pramod Thakur, who identified the thumb impression of the beneficiary Shamsun Nihar. It is alleged that the petitioner who was the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7713 of 2018(3) dt.22-03-2018 2/2 member of ward no. 7, managed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 6,000/- from the account of the informant by taking thumb impression of some unknown person with the help of the Bank Staff. From the nature of allegation, this court finds that there is serious irregularity committed by bank staff in withdrawing the amount on the basis of alleged identification of thumb impression by the petitioner. This is a serious matter that require to be inquired by the higher authority.

This court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition stands rejected.

The District Magistrate is directed to order for detailed inquiry in the matter and submit the compliance report. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail which will be considered by the court below in accordance with law and disposed off, without being prejudiced by this order.

Let this order be communicated to the learned District Magistrate.

(Sanjay Priya, J) khushbu/- U T