Posted On by &filed under High Court, Jharkhand High Court.


Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2011
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                A.B.A. No. 3146 of 2011
                                      ------
              Sanjay Kumar Thakur                       ...            ......           Petitioner
                                      Versus

              The State of Jharkhand                    ..     ....    ...          Opp. Party
                                           ------

              CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY
                                       ------
              For the Petitioner       :      M/s Rajendra Krishna &
                                              Akshay Kumar Mahato, Advocates
              For the State            :      A.P.P.
                                       -----

03    /15.09.2011

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is accused in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.51 of 2011

corresponding to G.R. Case No.372 of 2011 registered under Sections 409, 420, 406,

120-B, 467, 468 & 469 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

It reveals from the F.I.R. that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director

incharge, Social Security Cell, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. He was entrusted with a

job to prepare data of the old pensioner for which he had allotted the work, without

complying the rules, to a firm known as Dreamworks Infotech. No proper work was

done and a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- is alleged to have been defalcated.

It is submitted that it was not possible for the petitioner to give tender for a

petty job which was required to be held at village level. It is incorrect to say that

petitioner has defalcated the amount and even then he is ready to compensate the

loss by depositing the amount of Rs.4,30,000/- with the concerned department,

subject to final decision of the case.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

Since it is a case of embezzlement, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner,

above named, on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

However, if the petitioner deposits the said amount with the concerned

department, and surrender in the court below within a fortnight, the regular bail

shall be considered by the Court below without being prejudiced with this order.

(D.N. Upadhyay, J)
NKC


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.162 seconds.