Arvind Kumar Gautam v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24972 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -515 Year- 2017 Thana -GANDHIMAIDAN District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Arvind Kumar Gautam son of Sri Ambika Singh resident of 1-B/1, Ramchandra Asha Lata Kutir, S.K. Nagar, P.S. : Buddha Colony, District : Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Vigilance.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Varma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L.O.,Inc.,Vigilance) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2018 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Special Case No. 349 of 2017 arising out of Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No. 515 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (1) ( c) ( d) and R/W 13 (2) of the P. C. Act, 1988.

This is a case of Swakshta Yojna Scan and as per allegation, since 01.05.2016 to 23.06.2016, huge amount of Swaksh Bharat Mission ( Rural) financed by Union of India and Lohiya Swakshta Yojna financed by State Government was illegally transferred to different NGOs with a hatched conspiracy by the other accused persons including the petitioner in place of account of beneficiaries.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24972 of 2018 (3) dt.09-05-2018 2/2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to the occurrence, the petitioner had already resigned from the NGO and the same has been accepted by the General body of the NGO as such, when the money was transferred through RTGS from State Bank of India in the account of NGO " Kashtuir Sewa", the petitioner was not connected with the NGO.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the Vigilance oppose the prayer for bail on the ground of defalcation of huge amount in which the petitioner was also involved.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, let the petitioner, above named, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, Accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail is rejected with a direction to the petitioner that if the petitioner surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of order and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of this Court. This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T