Banarsi Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43774 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2023 Thana- DURGAWATI DistrictKaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== BANARSI RAM SON OF LATE DUKHDAWAN RAM @ LATE DUKHAN RAM VILLAGE PIPARIYA, PS- MOHANIYA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR (BHABUA) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-10-2023 Heard Mr Rachandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 142 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 409, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates of misappropriation of government fund allotted for instillation of street lights under the Khajura Panchayat.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation, as alleged in the F.I.R., is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He further submits that the petitioner happens to be Panchyat Secretary at the time

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43774 of 2023(3) dt.17-10-2023 2/2 of occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has discharge his duties as per the direction of Mukhiya concern and he has no concern at all with the alleged occurrence. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the basis of material available on record and the case diary vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation that the petitioner was involved in the present case and in internal report, it has surfaced that the petitioner and other accused persons have not completed the work as assigned to them and they have misappropriated the amount which was allotted for the purpose of work as mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioner carries three more cases other than the present one.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T