Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Raghubar Tiwary vs State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2012

Author: Jaya Roy

Bench: Jaya Roy

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   A.B.A. No. 567 of 2012
              Raghubar Tiwary                   ...  ...   ...       Petitioner
                                    Versus
              The State of Jharkhand            ...  ...   ...     Opp. Party
                                    ­­­­­­­­­­­
              CORAM            : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
                                     
              For the Petitioner: M/s Atanu Banerjee, T.K. Mishra, Advocates
              For the State         : A.P.P.
                                    ­­­­­­­­­­­
02/22.03.2012

Heard  counsel  appearing for the petitioner and  counsel  appearing for the State.

Petitioner   is     apprehending    his    arrest     in   connection  with the case registered under Sections 406/409/420 of the Indian  Penal Code.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that  though the audit report is a part of the F.I.R. but the informant has  not   named   the   petitioner   in   the   said   F.I.R.   only   Satya   Prakash  Choudhary is made accused in the F.I.R.. He has further submitted  that being Assistant Programme Officer neither he was In­charge of  placing order nor he was In­charge for making any payment. 

Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in the  audit   report   petitioner's   name   has   also   come,   thereafter,   in   the  investigation name of the petitioner has come as one of the persons  involved in this offence. Furthermore, this is a case of defalcation of  more than one crore rupees.

Considering   all   these   aspects   and   considering   the   fact  that there is material against the petitioner in the investigation and  also in the audit report, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to  the   petitioner.   Accordingly,   prayer   for   anticipatory   bail   of   the  petitioner stands rejected. 

(Jaya Roy, J.) Anit