Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42485 of 2008 ====================================================== Kumar Prabhakar, son of Shri Nawal Kishore Prasad, Director of Prabhakar Swarnim and Runa Traders Pvt. Ltd. Having office at Mussallahpur Hat, Police Station- Pirbahaore, District- Patna and represented through Assigne Shri B.K.Sinha of 402-D, Brindawan Kunj, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, Exihibition Road Town and District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar, 2. Mr. Ashish Tripathi, son of Shri Manoranjan Tripathi, Propriter of Ram Krishana Egg Distriubutor, having head office of 107/35 Hazar Road (Besides Paramount Nurshing Home) Police station Kalighat, Town andDistrict- Koldata- 26 and permanent address of village- Bhupade Nagar (Majma Road), P.O. Tenjgunia, P.S. Contai, District- Purba Medninipur (West Bengal). .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kali Prasanna Dubey, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dasrath Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 16-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42485 of 2008 (3) dt.16-07-2012 2 / 5 2 The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(In short Cr.P.C.) seeking cancellation of bail of Opposite Party No.2 granted to him by order dated 11.6.2008 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3562/2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in terms of Section 438 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel appearing on behalf for the petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.2 is an accused in Complaint Case No. 1069 (C)/ 2007 for offences under [STATUTE] , and there are certain specific allegations against him in the petition of complaint Vide Annexure-I. It is also submitted that after enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. primafacie case was found to be true for issuance of processes and accordingly cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate, Patna on 2.8.2007 in the aforesaid Complaint Case No. 1069 (C)/ 2007 against Opposite Party No.2 and others. Originally summons were issued by the learned Magistrate against all the accused persons. It is also submitted that inspite of issuance of summons, Opposite Party No.2 and other accused persons did not appear in Court, therefore, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against them, pursuant to which Opposite Party No.2 was apprehended by the Police of Contai, District- East Medinipur (West Bengal) on 7.4.2008. In view of arrest of Opposite Party No.2 by the Police of West Bengal in the aforesaid Complaint Case No. 1069(C) /2007, the Opposite Party No.2 was produced before the learned A.C.J.M., Contai, District- East Medinipur on 7.4.2008 and the prayer for bail made on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 was rejected vide order dated 7.4.2008 itself and he was directed to be Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42485 of 2008 (3) dt.16-07-2012 3 / 5 3 produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna on or before 21.4.2008. It appears that despite the arrest of the Opposite Party No.2 by the Police of West Bengal and despite the order dated 7.4.2008 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Contai, Opposite Party No.2 was not produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Patna in seisin of the aforesaid Complaint Case. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No.2 could manage to escape from the police custody, as he was not produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Patna on or before 21.4.2008. It is next submitted that by concealing the aforesaid facts about police custody, the Opposite Party No.2 filed anticipatory bail application No. 3562/2008 in terms of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge,Patna, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 11.6. 2008. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Opposite Party No.2 was apprehended by the police in connection with the aforesaid Complaint Case and was produced before the learned A.C.J.M., Contai and once his prayer for bail was rejected by the order dated 7.4.2008, the petition for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was not at all maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner the impugned order dated 11.6.2008 granting anticipatory bail to the Opposite Party No.2, is fit to be cancelled. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 has filed a show cause on his behalf. In the entire show cause, it has not been disputed by the Opposite Party No.2 that he Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42485 of 2008 (3) dt.16-07-2012 4 / 5 4 was taken into custody by the police on 7.4.2008. It has also not been disputed that prayer for bail made on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 in view of his arrest, was rejected by the learned A.C.J.M., Contai. It has further not been explained as to how Opposite Party No.2 managed to get out from the police custody and as to why he was not produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Patna on or before 21.4.2008. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 that in the light of the impugned order dated 11.6.2008, Opposite Party No.2 could not furnish the bail bonds and prayer for extension of time for furnishing bail bonds was refused. Thereafter, subsequently Opposite Party No.2 surrendered in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna and was granted bail on merit by order dated 5.12.2008. Be that as it may since Oppo

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.