Allowed

Ram Jeevan Roy v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC17 May 2018CR. MISC./56282/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for anticipatory bail in a PS Case involving offences under IPC, the High Court allowed the prayer. The petitioner was not in the written report; his name emerged during investigation as he failed initially to submit an inspection report of a rice mill but later did so. He is retired. Bail granted subject to surrender within six weeks and conditions regarding bail execution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed anticipatory bail subject to surrender within six weeks, furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, and complying with conditions regarding cooperation and non-tampering.

Ram Jeevan Roy Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Corruption | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.56282 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2013 Thana- FATUHA District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Ram Jeevan Roy son of Late Bansh Lochan Roy Resident of Village and P.S. Runnisaidpur, District - Sitamarhi, presently residing at Mohalla - Ashok Nagar, Road No. 11, P.S. Kankarbagh, District - Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Patna through the District Manager, State Food Corporation, Patna.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER

¶11

5 17-05-2018

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as counsel for the BSFC.

¶13

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Fatuha P.S. case no. 312 of 2013 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 409,467,468,471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not named in the written report. There is specific allegation against the proprietor of Rice Mill, namely, Arun Kumar of misappropriating the paddy which has been allotted to his mill, namely, Sidhi Vinayak Rice Mill after entering into an agreement with BSFC. The name of the petitioner has come during investigation stating that this petitioner did not submit

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56282 of 2017(5) dt.17-05-2018 2/3

¶16

the inspection report about milling of the paddy. It is further submitted that after issuance of letter dated 20.7.2013 (Annexure-3) he has inspected the Mill as mentioned in the written report along with other mills and submitted inspection report which is annexed as Annexure-4. From perusal of Annexure-4, it appears that proper inspection report has been submitted by the petitioner to the District Manager for which there is also endorsement on the left side of the report about receipt of the report. It is further submitted that petitioner was working as Assistant Godown Manager and he has already retired from service.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, named above, within six weeks from today in connection with Fatuha P.S. case no. 312 of 2013, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Patna City, Dist. Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P. C. with further conditions:(1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioner

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56282 of 2017(5) dt.17-05-2018 3/3

¶19

shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶20

(Sanjay Priya, J)

¶21

shyambihari/-

¶22

U T

Ram Jeevan Roy v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Jeevan Roy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Sharma and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Abdul Majid and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Sandhya Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Navin Kuamr Vs the State of Bihar through Th

Md. Hussain and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Arjun Singh Vs The State Of Bihar