Kameshwar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.64645 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2018 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Kameshwar Ram Son of Late Deo Raj Ram Resident of Village-Kurmuri (Baghratotala),P.S. Sikrahatta,Distt.-Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 22-11-2018 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner stating therein that total Rs. 21,98,000/- was allotted for construction of rooms in school in question but out of that amount petitioner has only completed the work of Rs. 1,29,500/-.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sikrahata P.S. Case No. 7/2018, instituted for the offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged in the written report that Head Master and Incharge Head Master of Middle School, Sikrahata had committed misappropriation of fund of Rs. 20,98,500/-, which was meant for construction of school building.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.64645 of 2018(3) dt.22-11-2018 2/2 It is mentioned in the supplementary affidavit that after completing the work of Rs. 1,29,500/-, the petitioner wrote a letter to the department with prayer to measure the work but without any measurement, authority again sent the amount in the year 2012 in the account. The petitioner again started work and spent the money in purchasing Gitti, Rod, Bricks etc. In the meantime, he was suspended. Letter of suspension is annexed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit.

From the letter of suspension, it appears that he was suspended because of non-completion of the work in spite of withdrawal of amount.

Petitioner has not filed any supporting document that he has purchased Gitti, Rod Bricks etc.

In view of such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U T