Vimal Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Department,North Zone,Muzaffarpur

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33295 of 2016 (2) dt.20-08-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33295 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -51 Year- 2011 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- PATNA ====================================================== Vimal Kumar Jha, Son of Late Rajendra Jha, Resident of village- Subash Kunai, Police Station- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Through Vigilance Department, north Zone, Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma(L.O,I/C Vigi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 24 of 2011 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)D of Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur.

The accusation is that petitioner, being the Mukhia of Lador Gram Panchayat under Gaighat block, under conspiracy with Block Development Officer and Revenue Clerk, Ghaighat, misappropriated the fund of Rs.1,37,000/- allotted by the Government for relief for flood effected persons and persons

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33295 of 2016 (2) dt.20-08-2016 suffered loss of crops by issuing the cheque in the name of different persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the Mukhia of Lador Gram Panchayat has falsely been implicated in this case, in fact, he has no concerned about issuing the cheque.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T