Allowed

Ashok Kumar Rai v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC20 Dec 2016CR. MISC./47947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted provisional bail to a rice mill owner facing prosecution under IPC sections 409 and 420 for alleged misappropriation. Bail is conditional upon surrendering within 5 weeks, furnishing bonds, producing receipts for 15% defalcated amount deposit, and approaching lower court for confirmation after depositing 20%. Additional conditions require deposit without prejudice to defense.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted provisional bail for 05 months subject to surrender within 05 weeks, furnishing bail bonds with sureties, and producing receipts for 15% deposit of alleged defalcated amount.

Ashok Kumar Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.47947 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -171 Year- 2016 Thana -MUFFASIL DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)

¶3

====================================================== Ashok Kumar Rai son of Gopal Ji Rai, resident of village, Gonauli, P.S. Bettiah Muffasil, West Champaran

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Bihar

¶7

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Ltd, Bettiah, West Champaran

¶8

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶9

======================================================

¶10

Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-7 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Anurag Singh

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 20-12-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sahay for the Corporation as well as the APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner being the rice mill owner is facing prosecution under sections 409 and 420 IPC lodged by the District Manager of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. The allegation is that under the agreement the petitioner was supplied 28598.80 qunitals of paddy during the year 2012-13 f or milling. The petitioner was required to supply 19161.19600 quintals of CMR whereas he only deposited 9720 quintals of CMR. Subsequently, on notice, a sum of Rs. eight lakh was also deposited with the Corporation. The FIR alleges that by not depositing the equivalent quantity of CMR, the petitioner

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47947 of 2016 (3) dt.20-12-2016

¶16

2/3

¶17

misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,96,45,476.40/-.

¶18

The contention of the petitioner is that under the agreement any such recovery could have been made thorough the PDR Act. A proceeding has already been filed under the said Act in which the petitioner had appeared and filed the objection. The informant was also liable to adjust the transportation charge etc which has not been done in the present case. However, for securing the privilege of anticipatory bail, the petitioner would be ready and willing to deposit certain percentage of the alleged defalcated amount if so directed by the Court. It is also pointed out that several accused persons facing identical allegation has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail on certain condition(s).

¶19

Learned counsel for the Corporation and the State, on the other hand, referring to the FIR, submitted that huge amount is lying due with the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest/surrender within 05 weeks from today, shall be released on provisional bail for a period of 05 months therefrom on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran in Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016 subject to the

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47947 of 2016 (3) dt.20-12-2016

¶22

3/3

¶23

condition that one of the bailors shall be his own/close family member. Along with the bail bonds, the petitioner shall produce the document/receipt showing deposit/payment of 15% of the defalcated amount as reflected in the FIR with the informant or the Corporation. Before expiry of the period of the provisional bail, the petitioner shall approach the court below and pray for confirmation thereof producing receipt/document showing further deposit of 20% of the defalcated amount as reflected in the FIR only whereafter the learned court below shall confirm the bail of the petitioner. The deposit so made by the petitioner shall be without prejudice to his right and defence in the case.

¶24

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶25

HR/-

¶26

U T

Ashok Kumar Rai v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Rai v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivasaray Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Kusheshwar Singh @ Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Pappu Shrivastawa @ Ranjan Kumar Shrivastawa and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Abdul Hamid Alam Vs The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Karu Yadav Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Rakesh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar