Ram Sevak Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15399 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2020 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== RAM SEVAK SINGH Son of Late Hukum Singh Residence of Village - Kakhaura, P.S. - Sakurabad, Dist.- Jehanabad, The ex panchayat Sachiv Modanganj, Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Neeraj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 23-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Ghoshi P.S. Case no. 411 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner is Panchayat Secretary and he in connivance of accused Shyam Nandan Sharma being ex Mukhiya had constructed the community hall on personal land of his co-villager, namely, Ravindra Sharma and misused the government fund amounting to Rs. 3,82,650/-.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. There is no legal evidence against he petitioner even of transaction of money. M.V. book was prepared by the engineer. Anchal Adhkari and Anchal Amin is totally responsible for demarcation over the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15399 of 2022(4) dt.23-11-2022 2/2 proposed land and not the petitioner and petitioner is being made scape goat. Apart from this fact, Ravindra Sharma has not raised any objection for making construction on his private land. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP appearing for the State have opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that inspite of making a community hall, in connivance with the petitioner, construction of residential house has been done in which Ravindra Sharma is residing. Informant in his re-statement at para 5 and during investigation, several witnesses in para 13 and 17 of the case diary have supported the prosecution story. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that petitioner is involved in embezzlement of government money, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U