Full Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and none appears on behalf of the State. Petitioner, who is accused for the offence under Sections 406/420, IPC, prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case has been instituted against the petitioner on account of grudge and malice by the informant and even according to the allegations in the first information report, the informant himself is not certain as to whether the petitioner had at all misappropriated or illegally disposed of any property from the informant's Office at Ranchi. Learned Counsel further explains that the allegation that the petitioner had removed some articles from the Office, is also vague and unspecific inasmuch as the informant had not revealed the source of information regarding the above allegations. It is lastly submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the informant is concerning terms and conditions of employment and the informant had tried to unduly pressurize the petitioner by resorting to the present criminal case.
4. From the allegations, it appears that the petitioner is accused of having illegally misappropriated the Company's properties at Ranchi. The informant is though not sure what properties are missing from the Office, yet it appears that the petitioner was employed under the informant and was retained as In-charge of the Office at Ranchi.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender himself before the Court below within 15 days from the date of this order and prays for regular bail and the learned Court below shall consider the prayer for bail on merits and on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.