Prahalad Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38648 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2020 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Prahalad Mahato, aged about 45 years, male, S/o Late Jagarnath Prasad, Resident of village - Mahabirpur, P.S. - Yogapatti, District - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-06-2021 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 32 of 2020, instituted for the offences under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been alleged in the First Information Report that there has been four irregularities in the implementation of the Chief Minister Rural Drinking

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38648 of 2020(3) dt.29-06-2021 2/3 Water Scheme in Ward No. 10 of Gram Panchayat - Pipra Naurangiya.

It has been submitted that the petitioner is the Mukhiya of the Panchayat and his responsibility ended by transmitting the fund in that account to the WIMC (Ward Implementation and Management Committee), the body which is responsible for execution of the work under the aforesaid scheme. It has further been submitted that the Ward Member, namely, Arvind Jha had entered into an agreement with the supplier and the work also proceeded but if there was any deficiency in the work, the petitioner cannot be held to responsible for the same.

Assuming but not admitting the fact that some of the works under the scheme have been found to be faulty or incomplete, that would not make out a case under Section 406 or 420 of the I.P.C., even with the aid of Section 34.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38648 of 2020(3) dt.29-06-2021 3/3 assessment report, which indicates that some of the works still remain unfinished but as noted in the preceding sentences, that by itself would not make the petitioner liable for the offences for which he is sought to be prosecuted in this case.

Regard being had to the facts afore-stated, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of eight weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 32 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The application stands allowed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- U T