Bhim Shankar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21749 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -332 Year- 2016 Thana -DUMRA District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Bhim Shankar Rai, Son of Late R.N. Rai, at present resident of 402, Bhubneshwar Enclave, A.G. Colony, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kripa Nand Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2017 Heard Sri Kripa Nand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has approached this Court, apprehending his arrest in Dumra P.S. Case No.332 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 420/ 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner superannuated in the year 2014 and after his superannuation, present F.I.R. was lodged in the year, 2016. He further submits that it is not a case of misappropriation of public fund, but allegation has been made that he had made excess payment to the contractor. He has also submitted that this Court has already passed an order on the issue of excess payment

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21749 of 2017 (2) dt.01-07-2017 2/2 in C.W.J.C.No.12336 of 2015. By the said order, a Bench of this Court had observed that on furnishing Bank Guarantee for Rs.3 crores, the respondent shall return the amount to the petitioner of the said case. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, whereas on going through the material on record, it is evident that even without approval of the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner has made excess payment and the government has suffered a loss of Rs.3 crores. It is evident that the investigation is continuing.

Considering the nature of accusation, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed. However, it is observed that if within six weeks from today, the petitioner appears before the court below and makes a prayer for grant of regular bail, the learned court below without being prejudiced with this order may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably on the same day.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T