IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28177 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 29.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 120/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that while working as cashier in the Bank he accepted the money of the depositors and although he made entry in the receipt register, but did not make the said entry in the ledger of the Bank. The money he receipted was having his signature and initial of the Branch. It is further submitted that although during investigation the police found the case to be true against this petitioner, however it is relevant to submit that the period between the occurrence of the alleged offence and registration of the first information report is much longer to the extent of about nine months and the alleged irregularity were not brought on record. It is further submitted that during investigation some of the account holders have stated that they have no complaint against - 2 - the Bank. Learned Addl.P.P., on the other hand, submits that the allegations against the petitioner during investigation has been found to be true, and as such, petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, as noticed above, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner on surrender makes an application for grant of bail before the Court below, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)