Chitranjan Kumar And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42527 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2014 Thana -BIND District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================
1. Chitranjan Kumar Son of Late Guru Sahay Mahto Resident of Village - Nepura, P.S. Asthawan, District - Nalanda, At present Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Nahush Under Rajgir Block (Nalanda).
2. Anuj Kumar Son of Sri Shibnandan Prasad resident of village - Naima, P.S. - Telhara, District- Nalanda, At present Panchayat Secretary (Sahib), Gram Panchayat Raj Surajpur, under Silao Block (Nalanda). .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar 1 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 30-07-2015 Heard.
Petitioners herein are the Panchayat Secretaries of two different Panchayats falling in Bind Block in the district of Nalanda.
The allegation is that 16 persons were given the benefit twice under Indira Awas Yojna on the basis of forged and fabricated document whereon the recommendations were made by the petitioners. It further appears that two of the beneficiaries subsequently refunded the amount. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda on verifying the allegations directed for lodging of the case and consequently Bind P.S. Case No. 01 of 2014 has been registered against the petitioners and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42527 of 2014 (3) dt.30-07-2015 2/2 other co-accuseds under Sections 419, 420, 406, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The defence of the petitioners is that once they came to know that the amount was disbursed on the basis of forged document, steps were taken to realize the same. Counsel for the State has pointed out that during the course of investigation, the materials were found to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Having considered the materials available on record, I am not convinced to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The prayer is accordingly rejected. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T