Ram Prasad Poddar v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DINESH KUMAR
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
.... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 25-02-2013 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioner no.2 being the PACS Chairman and petitioner no. 1 being the husband of petitioner no. 2 have misappropriated Rs. 7,75,000/- with regard to scholarship of children. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2 Pramila Devi filed Complaint Case No. 2129 of 2011 against the Manager of PACS, namely, Bindeshwar Poddar, in which cognizance has been taken. Considering the fact that the investigation 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46446 of 2012 (3) dt.25-02-2013 is still pending and petitioners undertake to deposit the aforesaid amount Rs. 7,75,000/- before the learned court below in the present case which will be invested in some fixed deposit scheme which will be subject to result of the case, let the petitioners above named be released on bail till conclusion of investigation in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 133 of 2012 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Purnea, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U.K./- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.