IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42658 of 2009 DR. PRAKRITI GUPTA MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 26.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant. Petitioner apprehends her arrest in Civil line Police Station case no. 354 of 2008. One Ramesh Chandra Sahay on 3.12.2008 lodged Complaint case no. 2052 of 2008 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya giving rise to Civil line Police Station case no. 354 of 2008 u/s 406,409,467,468,471,420,120B of the I.P.C. The complainant/informant stated that earlier he was working as Store keeper in Lady Elgin Janana Hospital, Gaya. The hospital has its account in SBI, Main Branch, Gaya bearing Account No. 11159904174. Only superintendent of Hospital was authorized to issue cheque after due recording of the same in proceeding . The cheque book used to remain in custody of superintendent of Hospital. On 14.2.2008 the superintendent of the Hospital (petitioner) gave him a cheque for encashing Rs.2 lakh from the SBI, Main branch, Gaya. In the branch, he was informed that a short while ago, one Mani Raj Kumar withdrew Rs.6,75,880/- on basis of cheques bearing no. 975824 issued by superintendent of Janana Hospital. He immediately informed the petitioner about the transaction. Thereafter, she came to the Bank and closeted with the - 2 - Manager. Then the petitioner, Bank manager and others cautioned him not to divulge the same before others and pressurized him to deposit the withdrawn amount in the bank by the next day, otherwise he would be suspended from service and sent to jail along with his whole family. He somehow managed his resources and deposited all but two lakhs. Thereafter, on 15.2.2008, branch manager sanctioned him loan of Rs. 2 to facilitate deposit of balance amount. The petitioner submits that it is the informant of the instant case who is the main culprit and she too has lodged Gaya Civil line Police Station case no. 340 of 2008 on 8.12.2008. She states that at the relevant time, only petitioner was working as assistant as against three sanctioned posts in the category. He was in charge of Account register, cheques book etc. On 14.2.2008 at 3.30 PM, the dealing assistant Ramesh Chandra Sahai, the informant of instant case informed her that three leaflets of cheques bearing Account of 11159904174 is missing. The petitioner immediately informed the Deputy Director, Health Services, Gaya on phone. She further stated that Ramesh Chandra Sahai in presence of Regional Deputy Director stated that one Mani Raj Kumar by forging her signature on one of the three missing cheques leaflets, namely, cheque leaf no. 976824 has withdrawn Rs. 6,25,188/-. On direction of the Regional Deputy Director, the petitioner approached Branch manager of the SBI, Main Branch, Gaya. After due deliberation, the informant accepted his guilt and agreed to deposit the amount with bank. She further asked the bank officials - 3 - not to honour other two missing cheque leaflets. She stated that the department has even suspended Mr. Sahai. The petitioner states that the cheque bearing no. 976824 does not bear her signature and same has been forged by the informant in conspiracy with Mani Raj Kumar. The petitioner submits that Ramesh Chandra Sahai, the informant of this case has been granted anticipatory bail in case lodged by her vide order dated 1.5.2009, passed in Cr. Misc. No 14982/2009. She submits that investigation would point out finger of guilt at the informant of this case itself. Counsel for the informant submits that only after he filed complaint on 3.12.2008, the petitioner lodged instantaneous Gaya Police Station case no. 340/05 by way of retaliation. He further submits that subsequently name of Mani Raj Kumar appearing on the cheque has been cut and in his place name of informant has been written. The main issue in this case is as to who issued the cheque bearing no. 976824 relating to Account No. 11159904174 of SBI, Main Branch, Gaya. Equally relevant issue would be as to who was the person who drew cash from the bank. The interrogation of bank employees/officials as well as Mani Raj Kumar may be relevant. In case Mani Raj Kumar is the recipient of the account, then how did he got hold of the cheque leaflet in question. From perusal of case diary, it appears the case is still under initial stage of investigation. - 4 - In view of nature of allegations, I observe that the Superintendent of Police, Gaya would monitor the case under his supervision and issue necessary directions regarding line of investigation including examination of hand writing of person(s) issuing and withdrawing the cheque in question. Till submission of charge sheet, in the event of arrest/surrender, the petitioner as above would be released on bail on her furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Gaya Civil line Police Station case no. 354 of 2008. Petitioner, informant and all concerned would co-operate in the investigation. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of police, Gaya. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)