Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3769/2023rejected

Naveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-11Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3769 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2022 Thana- BHADAUR District- Patna ====================================================== NAVEEN KUMAR Son of Binod Tanti R/o Jandi Nagar Bhadaur, P.S.- Bhadaur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2023 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Bhadaur P.S. Case No. 53 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 04.06.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has misappropriated the Government fund and did not complete the work under the Scheme of Jal Nal Yojna.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is Ward Secretary of Ward No. 15 of Jandi Nagar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3769 of 2023(4) dt.11-10-2023 2/2 under Chakjalal Panchayat and he has not concerned at all with the alleged occurrence and he is the person who only authorized to supervise the work in question. He further submits that as per allegation in the F.I.R. the petitioner and other co-accused persons have misused the fund which was transferred to the account of Prabhand Samiti and they have misused more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and the Chairman and Prabhand Samiti are the main responsible for completing the work in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction fairly submits that till date work has not been completed.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and level of allegation, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Bhadaur P.S. Case No. 53 of 2022 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U