Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33902 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2020 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar, aged about 37 years, Sex-Male, S/o Ganauri Prasad Singh,
R/o village- Bania Chak, P.S.- Rangra, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N K Agrawal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-03-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. N K Agrawal, learned senior counsel
along with Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Jagdishpur PS Case No. 156 of 2020 dated 16.05.2020,
instituted under Sections 379, 461 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that while
working as SDO (Phones) at BSNL, during his posting, he had
sent certain batteries from Bhagalpur to Naugachia, but when
the informant, who took charge from the petitioner, came to
know that the batteries had not reached Naugahcia, despite his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33902 of 2020 dt.16-03-2021
repeated requests, after being directed by the superior
authorities, has lodged the present case relating to the batteries
in question, having gone missing.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
informant had taken charge of office from the petitioner earlier
also and, thus, he carried some grudge against him. It was
submitted that even in the present case, without waiting for the
petitioner to ensure that the batteries reach their destination, the
present case has been filed, which shows that it has been done
with ulterior motives. Learned counsel submitted that he being
the SDO is not supposed to physically go and transfer the
batteries and has to rely upon his subordinates and they may
have committed some irregularities, but the petitioner is
innocent. It was submitted that even otherwise, there is another
case against the petitioner in which upon surrender he has been
granted bail and in the present case, he has been placed under
suspension.
6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner, even
after six months of his transfer from the post, still admitting that
he is trying to ensure that the batteries reach their destination,
clearly indicates that he lacks bona fide. It was further submitted
that the transfer of batteries from Bhagalpur to Naugachia,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33902 of 2020 dt.16-03-2021
which was a matter of less than a day, having not been
completed after over six months itself shows that there is more
than what meet the eyes. It was submitted that no bias can be
attributed to the informant as he was waiting for the petitioner to
ensure that the batteries reach their place, but because of
direction from superior authority, he had to file the case and he
has nothing personal against the petitioner.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
9. However, on submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is observed that if the petitioner appears before the
Court below and prays for bail, within four weeks from today,
the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance
with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
