Mayanand v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.597 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -128 Year- 2013 Thana -BHAGWANPUR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================
1. Mayanand son of Shri Indra Kumar Prasad, resident of villageAtaunatur, Ward No. 13, Post- Lalganj, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyabir Bharti For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dilip Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 03-07-2015 Heard both sides.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. case no. 128 of 2013, registered under Section 353, 406 and 409 of the IPC Petitioner, during the relevant period of time was posted as Panchayat Rojgar Sevak (PRS). Under the MANREGA different schemes were executed in block in question. He is alleged to have committed serious financial irregularity and misappropriated the fund allotted under those schemes. The allegation is that some of the schemes were executed halfheartedly and in some of the schemes there was no execution at all and payments were made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the enquiry report submits that admittedly there is some
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.597 of 2015 (4) dt.03-07-2015 2/3 discrepancies in the FIR and the enquiry report inasmuch as under the scheme no. 62 of 2011-12 a sum of Rs. 500/- was only advanced . It is also contended that the entry in the measurement book is the responsibilities of the Junior Engineer who has failed to perform the same for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. Before filing the FIR, he has already made over the charge of the office of the Panchayat Rojgar Sevak of the block/panchayat. In the submission of the counsel, the allegation of misappropriation of the fund in the light of the statements made in the supplementary affidavit is not more than Rs. 3.275 Lakhs. He has drawn attention of this Court to diverse documents which indicate that some of the schemes were partly executed.
On instruction, he states that for securing the privilege of anticipatory bail, the petitioner would be depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) with the District Rural Development Authority, Vaishali (For short 'the DRDA, Vaishali') as the matter is yet to be further examined and actual loss, if any, is to be ascertained. Considering the submissions, I am persuaded to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lakh) to the informant and/or the office of the DRDA, Vaishali which shall be without prejudice to the right and defence of the parties.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.597 of 2015 (4) dt.03-07-2015 3/3 learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Vaishali, in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. case no. 128 of 2013, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. with further following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be the own/close family member of the petitioner.
(ii) Along with the bail bonds the petitioner shall produce a demand draft of a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/(One Lakh) favouring the informant or appropriate authority of the DRDA, Vaishali and/or receipt showing deposit of the aforesaid amount with the DRDA, Vaishali.
It is made clear that the deposit so made shall be without prejudice to the right and defence of the parties. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T