IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47730 of 2007 SURENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE CHHEDI SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE KHABRA P.S.- KONCH, DISTRICT- GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHEO SHANKAR MANDAL, INSPECTOR OF POSTS & TELEGRAPHS, DAUDNAGAR SUB-DIVISION, AURANGABAD. For the petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 6 26.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order taking cognizance dated 3.7.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Konch P.S. case no. 10 of 2006. He is facing charge under diverse Sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 409 IPC. During the relevant time, he was posted as Sub-Post Master at the place wherefrom several Pass-Books under MIS scheme were issued containing his signatures but it was found that the amount deposited by the depositors had been misappropriated. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of his seeking anticipatory bail, he was initially released on provisional bail for a certain period in order to assist the I.O. in proper investigation of the case. It is the contention of the petitioner that on his assistance, the Investigating Officer, by means of a communication contained in Annexure-3, later informed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya that there was no defalcation of the amount of the depositor at the hands of the petitioner whose signature was not found on the 2 corresponding ledger. Learned counsel thus submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya ought to have considered this aspect of the matter also I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. Learned court below has taken cognizance based on the police papers (charge-sheet) submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is not the petitioner’s case that the charge-sheet submitted by the police do not enmesh him in the present offence. However, reliance is now being placed on the subsequent communication of the Investigating Officer which is Annexure-3. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present order. The application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge which shall be considered in accordance with law. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )