IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.862 of 2009 ANUP KUMAR, SON OF LATE KESH RAM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-CHAUKHANDI PAR, P.S. BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA(U/- DAKPAL CHANDI)…………………….PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate and Raj Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 22.04.09 The petitioner, the sole accused of Chandi P.S. Case No.116 of 2008 registered under Sections 406, 409 and 420 I.P.C. is incarcerated in connection therewith since 8.9.2008 when he voluntarily surrendered in court. The allegation against the petitioner who at the relevant time was posted as Up Dakpal in Chandi Post Office is of his having defalcated Government money to the tune of Rs.22,94,262/- which was found missing from the Khajana. This defalcation was detected in course of the visit of the Incharge Postal Inspector of Central Sub Division, Biharsharif. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in this case and except for the informant and a few other officers none else has supported the prosecution case. It was further submitted that notwithstanding the limit of Chandi Post Office to be only Rs.25000/- it is difficult to believe that such heavy amount could be retained in the Post Office. It was also sought to be submitted - 2 - that the petitioner joined at Chandi Post Office in the year 2008 and the defalcation was detected only on 29.7.2008 which appears to belie the prosecution case and the involvement of other Officers, past and present , cannot be ignored. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he submitted about the threats extended to him by Postal Superintendent, Jagdish Prasad Singh, Clerk, Mukesh Kumar, and Up- Dakpal, Kapildeo Paswan, and also alleged that the said amount was defalcated by other persons and he joined therein because of the threats extended to him. The prosecution case appears to be supported by the statement of the witnesses in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the case diary but apart from the factum of the missing Government currency and the petitioner being posted there no incriminating articles appears to have been recovered. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. apart from revealing the complicity of others in the misappropriation of the Government currency has admitted of his own involvement therein. A statement before the Magistrate on oath cannot be considered lightly. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)