Shyambabu Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5022 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2021 Thana- BABUBARHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Shyambabu Rai Son Of Khushilal Rai @ Shivlal Rai R/O Village- Sonpatahi (Sarara), P.S.- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, under the Nal Jal government scheme an amount of 13 lakh has been given to this petitioner being Ward Member vide cheque no. 185015 dated 05.11.2018, but neither the work has been completed nor measurement book has been provided. Thus, petitioner has misappropriated government money.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity by the then Mukhiya. Out of 13 lakh, work of worth Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5022 of 2022(2) dt.04-04-2022 2/2 10,58,288 has been completed. Petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2021.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner being Chairman of the Prabandhan Samiti, work was to be done under the guidance, supervision and control of the petitioner. As such, he was responsible for the completion of the work under Nal Jal Yojana. He received 13 lakh rupees under Nal Jal Yojana, but misappropriated the fund without completing the work. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T