IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5658 of 2009 Suraj Kumar Singh @ Suraj Kumar, Son of Shashi Bhushan Singh, Resident of Village- Maghaiya Chak, P.S. Tetiya Bambar Sangrampur District-Munger -------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. WITH Cr.Misc. No.10856 of 2009 Ravi Shankar Prasad Sah, Son of Sri Radhey Shyam Prasad Sah,resident Of Village- Sahebganj, P.S. Vishwa Vidyalaya, District-Bhagalpur ---------------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.S.M.Shabbir Alam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ______ O R D E R 4 20-04-2009 Cr.Misc.No.5658 of 2009 filed by petitioner Suraj Kumar Singh @ Suraj Kumar and Cr.Misc.No.10856 of 2009 filed by petitioner Ravi Shankar Prasad Sah have been taken up together as they arise out of the same Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.470 of 2008 for offences under Sections 420 and 406/34 I.P.C. and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common order. The allegation is that currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination worth over Rs.3 Lacs was found missing from the Godrej safe in the Sheikhpura Branch of SKS Microfinance Pvt.Ltd. on 2.12.2008 when in front of the informant along with audit staff, the safe was opened. It is said that the safe has two keys; key-A and key-B, of which key-A remains in the custody of Branch Manager, Suraj Kumar Singh and key-B remains in the custody of Deputy Branch Manager, - 2 - Ravi Shankar Prasad Sah. It is also alleged that a key of the three locks of the Branch Manager also remains in the custody of these two persons and these locks were not found broken. The informant has directed his suspicion against these two persons along with two staff of the said Branch, namely, Saurabh Keshri and Raman Kumar who notwithstanding 29.11.2008 being a Saturday and 30.11.2008 being a Sunday had remained at Sheikhpura when ordinarily on such occasions they go to their names elsewhere . The submission on behalf of petitioner Suraj Kumar Singh is that if the story as propounded in the written report is believed, at best it would make out a case of theft and no case under Section 406 or 420 I.P.C. could be said to have been made out. It was also submitted that one of the keys had remained with the former Branch Manager, Raj Kumar, and during the holidays the key of the safe was given to Raman Kumar and the chances of these persons creating duplicate keys cannot be ruled out and the petitioner was sought to be roped merely on the basis of suspicion. Reference also was made to paragraph 18 of the case diary to show that a sum or Rs.2,90,000/- had been carried by petitioner Ravi Shankar Prasad Sah along with Saurabh Kumar and Pushkar Kumar for deposit in the Sheikhpura Branch of Canara Bank , but the same could not be deposited as the bank had closed and Saurabh Kumar had remained back on the holiday at Sheikhpura having full knowledge of the amount in question being kept in the safe of the office. The submission on behalf of the petitioner Ravi Shankar - 3 - Prasad Sah apart from adopting the arguments placed on behalf of petitioner Suraj Kumar Singh further is that the implication of the petitioner in this case stands belied by the conduct of the petitioner who had innocently and voluntarily placed all the relevant documents, registers etc for perusal of the audit party. It was also attempted to divert the suspicion on co-accused Saurabh and Raman who notwithstanding 29.11.2008 being a Saturday and following day was a Sunday remained at Sheikhpura. The fact remains that the safe can be opened by using key-A and key -B together, of which these two petitioners respectively are the custodian. Therefore, in the event of there being shortage of currency notes kept in the safe, the suspicion or allegation regarding the shortage would immediately fall on these two petitioners. That apart if the story of previous Branch Manager not returning one of the keys and key of the safe had been given to Raman Kumar and chances of making duplicate keys thereof was strongly pressed the fact that the other three locks had remained untouched can only lead to conclusion that it were the two petitioners who were responsible for missing of the cash aforesaid. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to grant bail to any of the two petitioners. Their prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. NKS/- ( Abhijit Sinha, J )