Vimal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42045 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2021 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== VIMAL KUMAR SON OF RAMAKANT SINGH R/O- VILLAGEMANBODH PARSAUNI, P.S.- UCHKAGAON, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant based on the letter of the B.D.O. It is further submitted that the informant alleges that petitioner being Rural Housing Assistant fraudulently in place of beneficiary Chandrama Mahto recommended the name of Shanti Devi for Prime Minister Awas Yojana and got sanctioned Rs.1,20,000/- under the scheme in her favour. It is next submitted that Shanti Devi is wife of Chandrika Mahto who is own brother of Chandrama Mahto as such on account of similarity in the name
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42045 of 2024(2) dt.21-06-2024 2/2 the mistake occurred, further when the petitioner came to now about the said mistake he also got the money recovered from the account of Shanti Devi. It is also submitted that the contractual appointment of the petitioner was terminated against which he filed revision before the superior authority and the same was allowed holding that on account of similarity in the name of the husband of Shanti Devi and Chandrama Mahto, the said mistake occurred and, accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T