Dismissed

Harideo Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC10 Apr 2019CR. MISC./67760/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR alleging embezzlement and false implication under Sections 409 and 420 IPC as an Executive Assistant. The court held that privilege bail was not warranted in these circumstances and advised surrender within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Privilege bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender within six weeks to seek regular bail.

Harideo Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar — Corruption | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67760 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2015 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

Harideo Prasad Singh, Son of Sri Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of VillageNavtoli,P.S. Babubarhi,Distt.-Madhubani

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

7 10-04-2019

¶12

Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 166 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Allegation against the petitioner, who is an Executive Assistant of Paddy Purchase Centre, Laukahi, is that he purchased 52783.30 quintals of paddy and he has sent only 47052 quintals of paddy to the different mills and 5730.80 quintals of paddy, which was withdrawn on forged receipt, had been sold in black market and thereby embezzled the paddy to the tune of Rs.98,41,961/-.

¶14

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has already produced all the receipts and he has falsely been implicated and he is a contract employee.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67760 of 2018(7) dt.10-04-2019 2/2

¶16

Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that FIR does not show that he has produced any receipt.

¶17

Having heard both sides and in the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petitioner may surrender within a period of six weeks and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered on the basis of the materials available on the record as well as the submission that he has produced the receipts.

¶18

With the above observation, this application is

¶19

dismissed.

¶20

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)

¶21

spal/-

¶22

U T

Harideo Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harideo Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

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

Vinod Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hari Bansh Rai and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Nawal Tiwari @ Nawal Kumar Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar

Ganesh Yadav @ Ganesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Kamlesh Narayan Vs The State Of Bihar