The High Court rejected the petitioner's bail application in a case involving embezzlement from the Bihar State Food Corporation. Admission of guilt via PACS management role was rejected. The trial was directed to conclude within nine months.
Bail prayer rejected; trial expedited to be concluded within nine months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72365 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2019 Thana- TANDWA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
RAHUL KUMAR SON OF RAM SHWRUP SINGH R/O VILLAGE- ITWA, POST- MEHIYA, P.S.- TANDWA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER
6 19-10-2022
Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be
removed within a period of four weeks from today.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, and 34 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, petitioner and others embezzled the amount of 14,03,212.41 to the Bihar State Food Corporation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 6.10.2021 and bears criminal antecedent of one case. He further submits that being manager of Basdiha PACS he has no role to play in the said occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72365 of 2021(6) dt.19-10-2022 2/2
Petitioner is quite innocent and committed no offence as alleged in the said FIR.
The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that being a member of the Basdiha PACS he has joint liability to make the payment of embezzled amount i.e. Rs. 14,03,212.41/and the said responsibility has not been fulfilled.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the present petitioner is hereby rejected.
However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt of this order. If there is no substantial progress in the proceeding of trial within stipulated period, petitioner may renew the prayer of bail.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
vashudha/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with offences under Sections 406, 420, 409, and 34 of the IPC?
RAHUL KUMAR SON OF RAM SHWRUP SINGH
THE STATE OF BIHAR
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
