IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24403 of 2009 RAJESH PRASAD DEEPAK Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 19.07.2010 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Such prayer of the petitioner was earlier refused by this Court on 12.5.2009 under Cr. Misc. No. 12634 of 2009 vide following orders. “The petitioner is accused in Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 162 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 409, 466 and 420 IPC. Petitioner is a revenue clerk. In view of there being specific allegation that the petitioner received revenue rent for Rs. 18, 315/-, but it was not entered into the relevant register nor deposited in the Treasury and further allegation is that the petitioner had issued rent receipt of same number to two different Raiyats indicating that the petitioner was issuing forged and fabricated receipts for the purpose of illegal gains, I do not feel inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed”. There was categorical allegation on the petitioner that the petitioner had issued rent receipt of the same number to two different Raiyats indicating that petitioner was issuing forged and fabricated receipts for the purpose of illegal gains. Today learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner 2 and after departmental preceding the petitioner’s suspension was withdrawn and he was reinstated. Annexure-9 is the report of the departmental proceeding. So far the finding of the departmental proceeding at page-37 of the brief is concerned, it mentions that with respect to issuing to two receipts of same number and the charge was proved, but in the concluding portion of the finding of proceeding it has been mentioned that some files and related papers which were called for from the office were not produced, hence, the proceeding was closed. No doubt, the proceeding was closed but related finding of the proceeding is not clearly in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, this fact was to be investigated into by police. In such view of the matters, I do not find it a fit case for reconsideration of the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. The petitioner will surrender before the trial court and pray for regular bail which will be decided on its merits. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-