Tarun Kumar Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 4 July, 2008

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Cr.Misc. No.15733 of 2008
                           TARUN KUMAR YADAV
                                 Versus
                             STATE OF BIHAR
                              -----------

3.   4.7.2008                Heard.

                                This     is     an   application         for   anticipatory

bail in Kishanganj P.S.Case No. 275/2007 filed under

sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal

Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that there is allegation against the

petitioner that he withdrew a total sum of Rs.

55,000/- in three separate instalments from the

G.P.F. of one employee of the said department namely

Munilal Urao and misrepresented the money by forging

the signatures of the employee but from the perusal

of the case diary it would appear that there is

nothing to show that the alleged signatures on the

vouchers or other documents, through which withdrawal

of money was made, were found to be of the

petitioner. In the written report it has been stated

that after verification by an officer of the

department it was found that the petitioner withdrew

the said money, but the report of the said officer

also is not available in the record or in the case

diary.

Learned A.P.P. submitted that the

investigation is going on. He fairly conceded that up

till now there has been no expert report regarding

the disputed signature.

In view of the above submissions, the

prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
2

allowed till submission of the final form and he

(Tarun Kumar Yadav) is directed to surrender before

the court below within four weeks from today and in

the event of his surrender/arrest he shall be

enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of

Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of

the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in the aforementioned

case, subject to the conditions as laid down u/s

438(2) Cr.P.C.

However, as prayed for, a liberty is given

to the petitioner to file a fresh application for

anticipatory bail within one month of submission of

the final form and till then no coercive process

would be issued against him.

( Rekha Kumari,J.)

Surendra/