Dharmendra Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1398 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68376 of 2019
        Arising Out of PS Case No.-282 Year-2018 Thana- WARSALIGANJ District- Nawada
     ======================================================

Dharmendra Prasad, aged about 35 years, Male, Proprietor of Aditya Agro Enterprises, Son of Late Ramswaroop Singh, Resident of Village - Koachgaon, PS- Warsaliganj, District - Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank, Nawada, District -

Nawada.

3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation through the District Manager, Nawada, District Nawada.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the CCB, Nawada : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-03-2021

Heard Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public

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

Bindhyachal Rai, learned counsel for the Central Co-operative

Bank, Nawada (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') and Mr.

Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Bihar State Food

and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as

the 'BSFC').

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Warsaliganj PS Case No. 282 of 2018 dated 10.08.2018, instituted

under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68376 of 2019 dt.12-03-2021

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was

supplied 4548.70 quintals of paddy of which 67% of CMR was to

be returned by him. However, the same was not done and the

value of which was over Rs. 70,50,020/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as

per the allegation, the paddy was procured by the four PACS and

the concerned PACS of two blocks have deposited over Rs. 37

lakhs with the Bank whereas Rs. 6 lakhs has been deposited by the

petitioner and with regard to the rest, there is an FIR against the

concerned PACS. It was submitted that in such view of the matter,

the FIR cannot become a mode of recovery of any disputed

amount. Learned counsel submitted that a co-ordinate Bench in

the case of Manita Priya, by order dated 25.06.2019 passed in Cr.

Misc. No. 37061 of 2019, has granted provisional anticipatory bail

upon deposit of 20% of the remaining amount by the said

petitioner against whom similar allegation was levelled. It was

further submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal

antecedent. It was submitted that the petitioner's outstanding, as

per the FIR, is only ten lakhs.

5. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the

petitioner has himself admitted with regard to his receiving the

paddy and, thus, it is incumbent upon him either to pay the money Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68376 of 2019 dt.12-03-2021

or supply 67% CMR of the same, which has not been done. It was

submitted that both the PACS and the petitioner are liable and that

is why against both there have been FIR. Learned counsel

submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner himself has

admitted receiving the paddy, of which 67% has not been returned

as CMR, obviously, the said constitutes a criminal liability.

Learned counsel for the Bank does not admit that this the only

amount.

6. Learned counsel for the BSFC adopted the arguments

of learned counsel for the Bank and submitted that the petitioner is

liable to either pay the amount or return the CMR/paddy.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that he shall clear whatever outstanding dues

are against him of the Bank, as per the FIR, within one month and

take such Certificate from the Bank and present it before the Court

below and then the Court may release him on bail.

9. Having regard to the categorical stand taken on

behalf of the petitioner, by way of indulgence, let the petitioner

clear the entire outstanding dues against him of the Bank and then Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68376 of 2019 dt.12-03-2021

obtain a Certificate to this effect from them within two months

from today. If the same is done, the petitioner shall appear before

the Court below with the original Certificate issued by the Bank in

favour of the petitioner relating to present FIR. Upon doing so, the

petitioner shall 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 ACJM-II, Nawada

in Warsaliganj PS Case No. 282 of 2018, 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 and (ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the

Court/police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate or violation of any

terms/conditions shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.

10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring

violation of the foregoing condition 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.

11. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to submit

such Certificate from the Bank with regard to clearing the entire

dues, within two months from today, it will be deemed that the

present application has been dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68376 of 2019 dt.12-03-2021

12. It is clarified that the dues of the petitioner with

regard to all the PACS named in the FIR shall be cleared since the

petitioner has admitted receiving the total amount of paddy from

the concerned PACS.

13. The Court would further observe that the ultimate

claim of the parties shall be as per the records and in accordance

with law, and the present order has been passed only for the

purpose of grant of anticipatory bail.

14. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar/ J. Alam

AFR/NAFR U T