Shankar Rana v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22017 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2020 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
SHANKAR RANA S/O KISHUN RANA Resident of VillageKakaniyantari, P.O. Chhapa, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui. 2.
DHARMENDRA KUMAR S/O RAM DEO MANDAL Resident of VillageKakaniyantari, P.O. Chhapa, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pramod Kuamr Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2. Petitioners apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged that these petitioners have defalcated the Government money i . e . Rs. 17,22,500/- violating rules and order of Panchayat Raj Department.
4. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. There is no specific allegation against these petitioners. They have not violated any rule as alleged. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22017 of 2023(4) dt.30-08-2023 2/2
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in para 5 of case diary it has come that these petitioners being President and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj, Kakan, Block Jhajha, district Jamui have advanced the government money to Sri Krishna Murari Enterprises, Electricity Ofice Sikandra Road, Jamui, whereas, there is no provision of payment of advance money under the scheme. In para 11,12,18,and 19 of case diary, statement of other witnesses have been mentioned, and they have also supported the prosecution case. In para 52 of case diary ReportII of S. Jamui has been mentioned, in which the supervising authority has also found the complicity of these petitioners in defalcation of government money.
6. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of allegation, prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Kaushik/- U T