Arjun Chanchal v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45780 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1472 Year- 2014 Thana -NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE DistrictNAWADA ====================================================== Arjun Chanchal Son of Late Phago Pandit, Secrtary of the Intermediate Mathurasini Mahavidaylay, Rajauli, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Leela Kumari W/o Ranit Singh, Member, Lecturer and Teacher, Inermidiate Mathurasini Mahavidaylay, Rajauli, P.S.- Rajauli, DistrictNawada. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.

For the Informant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 20-09-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the informant, namely, Mr. Arun Kumar. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1472 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation is that the petitioner, while he was Secretary of the College, had issued four cheques to unauthorized persons, who were not entitled for the same and in such manner withdrawn a sum of Rs. 33,32,066/-. The further allegation is that a sum of Rs. 10,00000/- was withdrawn for the purpose of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45780 of 2017 (2) dt.20-09-2017 2/3 construction of the college building, although the college building was already well constructed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, he was the Secretary of the College at that point of time and as such he was authorized and competent person to issue cheque and as far as Rs. 10,00000/- is concerned, a building was constructed with the amount withdrawn by the petitioner herein from the fund available to the College. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would appear without fail before the learned trial court on each and every dates so fixed by the learned trial court so as to expedite the trial.

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that he being the representative of the teacher association has locus to expose the misdeeds of the Secretary of the College who has swindled huge sums of money and in fact no audit was got conducted by the college.

I find that the petitioner is no longer Secretary of the College and the appropriate authority, if so advised, may take such steps to get the audit of the college conducted as are necessary and thereafter necessary follow up action be taken.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45780 of 2017 (2) dt.20-09-2017 3/3 In the facts and circumstances of the case it would not serve anyone's purpose by keeping the petitioner behind bars, hence I deem it fit and proper to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Complaint Case No. 1472 of 2014.

It is further directed that the petitioner would appear on each and every dates before the learned trial court and if he fails to appear on two consecutive dates, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he would be taken into custody forthwith. Any hindrance by the petitioner in the expeditious disposal of the trial may be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) BTiwary/- U T