Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3824 Patna

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3824 Patna
Judgement Date : 30 July, 2021

Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 30 July, 2021
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12084 of 2021
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2020 Thana- Sherghati District-Gaya
======================================================

Sunil Kumar (Male), aged about 29 years, son of Umesh Yadav, Resident of Village-Sri Ram Bigha, P.S.- Gurua, District-Gaya

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. P K Shahi, Senior Advocate with
                                  Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State            :        Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 30-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis

of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on

22.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. P K Shahi, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

(hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Sherghati PS Case No. 132 of 2020 dated 18.03.2020, instituted

under Sections 409/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The allegation against the petitioner and four others Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 12084 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021

who were at the relevant time employed under The Magadh

Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as

the 'Bank'), is that in connivance with each other a sum of Rs.

79,78,166.49 was defalcated.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

during the relevant period, he was only a contractual Assistant

and at the lowest rung of hierarchy. It was submitted that

without going into the finer details on merits, it has come in the

audit, which is the basis of lodging of the present FIR, that the

petitioner was responsible for an amount of Rs. 25,84,049/-. It

was submitted that out of the same, Rs. 24,00,000/- was earlier

deposited on 17.06.2020 and the remaining amount of Rs.

1,84,649/- has also been credited thereafter. In this connection,

learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the order of

the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya dated 12.10.2020 in ABP No.

1074 of 2020 which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner

along with analogous cases. It was submitted that the main

amount of Rs. 64,31,880/- is due to alleged defalcation by co-

accused Javed Hussain, the then Assistant who has sent a letter

to the Managing Director of the Bank that he along with the

petitioner was responsible for such misappropriation and that

since he is not in India, on return he would deposit the same.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 12084 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021

The amount also has been disclosed i.e., Rs. 64,31,880/- which

was transferred in his personal account. Learned counsel

submitted that the petitioner having satisfied whatever amount is

said to have been defalcated, without going into the correctness

of the accusation, may be granted indulgence as he will be

facing the trial and no useful purpose would be served by

putting him behind bars. It was submitted that the petitioner has

no other criminal antecedent.

7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was also

involved in the defalcation of huge amount of almost Rs. 80

lakhs. However, it was not controverted that as per the finding

in the order dated 12.10.2020 of the learned Sessions Judge,

Gaya by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner

was rejected, it has been noted that the petitioner had deposited

a sum of Rs. 1,84,649/- and that Rs. 64,31,880/- was transferred

in the personal account of co-accused Javed Hussain, who has

written a letter to the Managing Director of the Bank that

because he was out of country, on return he be given time to

deposit the entire defalcated amount.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court, in view of the petitioner having deposited the amount Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 12084 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021

alleged to have been defalcated by him, is inclined to interfere.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court

below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on

bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five

thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sherghaty, Gaya in Sherghaty PS Case No. 132 of 2020, subject

to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further (i) that one of the bailors

shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner

and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to good

behaviour of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also

give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any

illegal/criminal activity, act in violation of any law/statutory

provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the

undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The

petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present before the

Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being

absent on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall

also lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.

9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 12084 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021

any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the

petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take

immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

10. The petition stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter