IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10531 of 2007 IFTEKHAR AHMAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 23.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant case it was noticed that the materials coming in the supervision note of the Dy.S.P. suggests the involvement of the petitioner also in the case. The prosecution case in short, as made out in Patepur P.S. Case No.15 of 2005, is that in course of enquiry it transpired that the department had suffered a loss of about Rs.18 lacs. The allegation was in respect of fraud and defalcation in connection with V.P.P. Parcels being issued and paid in connivance with the Department’s staff. In course of departmental enquiry it was revealed that one Rohit Kumar who ran three concerns in the name and style of Rohit Traders, Rohit Ashram and Rohit International got issued V.P.P. orders without due sanction and by using used stamps. While granting bail to the petitioner, this court by order dated 23.3.2007 noticed that the petitioner is peon and he has not concerned with the management or execution of the affairs of the department. It was also noticed that the petitioner has nothing to do with the VAP and internal work of the post office. In view of the subsequent materials coming on record in Cr.Misc.No.32941 of 2007 heard analogous with Cr.Misc.No.52616 of 2007 indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, this court issued notice to this petitioner. Pursuant to the notice counsel for - 2 - KHAN the petitioner was also heard on the point of cancellation of bail. This court finds that supervision note clearly indicates the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case along with other accused persons. In this view of the matter, this court is inclined to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 23.3.2007. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and pray for regular bail. In case the petitioner files a regular bail the same would be considered on its own merit preferably on the same day without being prejudiced by the fact that his bail was cancelled by this court. (S.P.Singh,J)