Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39128/2016rejected

Vijay Pratap Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-08Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39128 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -95 Year- 2015 Thana -BHAGWANPUR District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Vijay Pratap Paswan (Suspended Teacher) Utkramit Madhya Vidyalya Kinnar Chola, s/o Kahar Paswan, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur. At present: village-Beldhi, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 04.01.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42705 of 2015.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the head master of Upgraded Middle School, Kinar Chola and he is alleged to have withdrawn Rs. 7 lacs for construction of school building, but till the lodging of the FIR he constructed the building worth Rs. 1,13,546/-. It is submitted that now the construction work has already been completed. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39128 of 2016 (2) dt.08-02-2017 2/2 departmental proceeding has already been dropped. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It appears that even after rejection of anticipatory bail of the petitioner in the first week of January, 2016, the petitioner did not surrender in the court and after one year filed the petition for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner has withdrawn the amount for construction of the building, but he did not complete the construction work and kept the money with him. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T