Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Barnwal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18854 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2020 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== PANKAJ KUMAR @ PANKAJ BARNWAL SON OF KANHAIYA BARNWAL R/O VILLAGE- BASANTPUR, P.S.- SATHI, DISTRICTWEST CHAMPARAN, MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BASANTPUR.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sachida Nand Rai For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 14-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the requisite court fee and to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in nutshell is that according to memo issued by the Secretary of Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, it was decided to supply water to each house of the rural areas till year 201920. In scheme no. 1, at ward no. 2 of Gram Panchayat Raj Basantpur, irregularities was found in Mukhya Mantri Gramin Payjal Scheme. The informant alleged that an irregularity was found from the inspection report.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18854 of 2021(2) dt.14-12-2021 2/2 The District Magistrate, West Champaran Bettiah called for explanation from the Mukhiya, Secretary and Chairman of Ward No.02 of Gram Panchayat Raj Basantpur. They submitted their explanation, but the District Magistrate did not satisfy with their explanation and directed the Block Development Officer to lodge an F.I.R. against them. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent man, who was being falsely implicated in this case and committed no offence. It is also submitted that work was done, but not even on time due to technical and labour problem.

Learned A.P.P. opposes and submitted that it is a case of defalcation of Government money and charges levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature.

From perusal of the petition at para-3, it is mentioned that petitioner is involved in several serious cases. Considering the fact and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) pravinkumar/- U