Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

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.

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.

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 repeated requests, after being directed by the superior authorities, has lodged the present case relating to the batteries in question, having gone missing.

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.

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, 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.

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.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

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.