Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39098/2017rejected

Ajay Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2018-04-11Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39098 of 2017 (4) dt.11-04-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39098 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -43 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHEPUR District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Son of Late Upendra Thakur, Resident of Village & P.O. Raghauli, Police Station Bisfi, District-Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Madhepur P.S. Case 43 of 2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation has been made in the First Information Report regarding irregularities done by the accused persons in the allotment of Indira Awas. Certain persons were granted the benefit even though they are not entitled for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed in 2013 and he was incharge of Indira Awas in December, 2013 up-to March 2014. In March 2014 he has handed over the charge as he was transferred to another

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39098 of 2017 (4) dt.11-04-2018 place. Petitioner has no role in the matter. The main person was BDO, Najir and Head clerk. He was only assistant and all have been granted anticipatory bail (Annexure-4 series). Perused the case diary.

Paragraph nos. 14 to 16, 31 and 38 of the case diary indicates the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Earlier the petitioner has also faced with similar nature of case.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of three weeks, the court below will pass an order taking into consideration that other persons have been granted bail.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U T