Md. Sagir Alam vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.103 of 2021 registered under sections 420/ 408/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Managing Secretary of Barhait Santhali Dakshani Lamps Ltd has misappropriated 1184 quintals of paddy worth Rs.23,68,000/-. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has not misappropriated any paddy. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in view of the serious nature of allegation of misappropriation of huge amount of paddy, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of misappropriated paddy as well as to find out the further details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.