IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33465 of 2008 HARI NARAIN RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 20.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case for the offences registered under sections 467,468,465,420,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that at the relevant time he is alleged to be the director of Non- Banking Finance Company known as Dharohar Leasing Limited and the complainant is the agent of the said leasing company. The money used to be collected from the intending depositors and deposited in the account of leasing company. Later on the said leasing company disappeared and in this way misappropriated money of the depositors. It is further alleged that the petitioner issued two cheques for payment towards the dues of the depositors however those cheques were bounced. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for bail in the light of the allegations made in the complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. Sym ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)