Shashi Bhushan Pathak v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46337 of 2018 Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -89 Year- 2017 Thana -DHANSORI District- BUXAR ====================================================== Shashi Bhushan Pathak S/o Late Shambhu Narayan Pathak, R/o Vill.- Nagwan, P.S.- Dubhar, District- Baliya, U.P. Presently posted as Junior Engineer Rural Works Dept. Distt.- Buxar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Panchanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Dhansoi P.S.Case No.89 of 2017 pending in the Court of ACJMIII, Buxar registered for an offence under Sections 417, 423 and 466/34 of the IPC.
3. Petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application for the second time on the ground that similarly situated coaccuseds in another case have been allowed anticipatory bail by other coordinate Benches in Cr.Misc.No.53781 of 2017 and 48448 of 2017. The said co-accuseds have been granted bail subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- each in the Government Treasury towards alleged embezzled amount. It has been further submitted that in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46337 of 2018 (2) dt.05-09-2018 2/3 subsequent measurement, in course of investigation, the work was found completed. The case of this petitioner stands on similar footing to the other co-accused who have been allowed anticipatory bail.
4. The learned APP opposed the submissions.
5. On perusal of record, it appears that the anticipatory bail prayer of this petitioner was rejected on 21.08.2017 in Cr.Misc.No.39471 of 2017 considering the fact that this petitioner was found responsible for excess payment on account of wrong measurement submitted by him in the capacity of Junior Engineer. The matter was enquired by the committee and it was found that this petitioner had not measured the work properly rather submitted report of completion of work for an area which was more than actual construction. The committee recommended to recover the amount of Rs.1,46,415/- from the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary which was paid on the basis of report of the petitioner.
6. In view of above facts, I am not inclined to reconsider the anticipatory bail prayer of the petitioner. Prayer is again rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./-
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46337 of 2018 (2) dt.05-09-2018 3/3 U T