Narayan Prasad Pathak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 940 of 2016 • Narayan Prasad Pathak S/O Malik Ram Pathak Aged About 61 Years R/O Raghunathpuram (Wrongly Mentioned Raghunathpura In A.S.J. Order) Uslapur, Police Chauki Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Koni, Civil District & Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 07-10-2016

1. This second bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 37 of 2016 registered at Police Station Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 409, 406, 408 & 120 of IPC. First bail application was dismissed on merit on 10-5-2016.

2. As per case of the prosecution, the applicant was working as a Supervisor in the Co-operative Bank at Sarkanda. He was also in additional charge of Sendri Seva Sahkari Samiti as Manager. During the period from 2012 to filing of FIR i.e., 8-2-2016 several amounts were withdrawn from Sarkanda Cooperative Bank which were to be deposited in Semartal Zila Seva Sahkari Samiti but instead of amount deposited in Semartal Seva Sahkari Samiti amount though withdrawn was usurpted. Applicant being one of the

Supervisors has failed in his duty or put a brake to such withdrawal and eventually amount of total Rs.61 lakhs was withdrawn.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant was not authorized to supervise the transfer of amount and the same was given to someone else and main withdrawal of amount was made by one Baldeo Prasad Dhivar, therefore, the applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary, documents and also perused the rejection of bail order dated 10-5-2016. The bail application was dismissed on merit taking into role played by the applicant as the withdrawal of amount came to fore after audit was carried out.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the role attributed to application who is one of the employees and considering the facts which lead to show that it is not a fit case where custodial interrogation may not be required, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, is also liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju