IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14871 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2024 Thana- BAJPATTI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Gopal Jee Jha @ Gopal Jha S/O Suryadev Jha R/o Ward No 45 Kailashpuri, Dumra P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 23-07-2025 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 132 of 2024 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the informants had directly given money to the petitioner, who is the the post master but he had not deposited the amount in the recurring deposit of the informants, leading to defalcation of large amount of public money, including the informants’ money. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on the post of Post- master at the relevant time, when the alleged offence was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14871 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2025 2/5 committed. The allegation against the petitioner is that he directly received certain amount from the informants, which he had not deposited in the recurring deposit account. Learned counsel referring to a scheme namely Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna Rules (MPKBYR) submitted that under the part II of the said Rules, relates to instructions to appointing, issuing, paying and supervisory authorities functions. Clause B of the said Rules relates to the issuing and paying authorities, sub- clause (iv) of Clause B provides that a mahila agent is authorized to handle cash not exceeding Rs.5000/- or Rs.10000/- as the case may be at any given time depending upon the amount of security she has deposited. The role of the agent has been specified in the said Rule and the money of the beneficiaries are required to be deposited through the mahila agent as the scheme itself has been introduced to give maximum employment to the woman. Learned counsel further submitted that the informants themselves admitted that they had directly handed over the amount to the Post master (the petitioner) which was to be deposited in the recurring account by paying the agent, who in security has deposited certain amount with the bank to ensure that no beneficiary can suffer on account of any fraud committed by the agent. The informants themselves have Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14871 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2025 3/5 not adhered to the guidelines and as such, they themselves are responsible for any amount which they have voluntarily given to any person, which the petitioner denied that he had received any amount being the Post-master. Learned counsel alleged that the petitioner has suffered a lot and now he has superannuated having suspended during the service period on the basis of accusation made against him. On these grounds, the petitioner submitted that already penal action has been taken against him and he seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned counsel has tendered his appearance on behalf of the informants and submitted that they had handed over the total amount of Rs.4,90,512/- to the petitioner in belief that he is the Post-master so that the same amount will be deposited in their respective recurring deposit account. 6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegations made in the FIR and material collected in course of investigation, I find that the petitioner was the Post-master and the allegation against him is that he has received certain amount from the informants Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14871 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2025 4/5 and had committed fraud with them and other beneficiaries of the scheme namely MPKBYR, which is guided by the rules framed giving guidelines for the agents and the manner in which the amount is required to be deposited. I have perused the relevant part II of the Rules, I find that the same relates to instructions to appointing, issuing, paying and supervisory authorities functions. Clause B of the said Rules relates to the issuing and paying authorities and sub-clause (iv) of Clause B provides that a mahila agent is authorized to handle cash not exceeding Rs.5000/- or Rs.10000/- as the case may be at any given time depending upon the amount of security she has deposited. The role of the agent has been specified in the said Rule and the money of the beneficiaries are required to be deposited through the mahila agent, as the scheme itself has been introduced to give maximum employment to the woman. I find that the informants have admitted that they had already directly handed over the amount to the petitioner, who was then posted as Post-master and the said allegation loses its credibility in view of the procedure prescribed in the scheme. In view of the general and omnibus allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has, prima facie, made out a case to be released on anticipatory bail. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14871 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2025 5/5 8. The learned District Court is directed to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Pupri), Sitamarhi in connection with Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 132 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. 9. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioner, as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically. Ashishsingh/- (Purnendu Singh, J) U T