Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54253 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2025 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary son of Heera Chaudhary R/o Village- Takuatand, P.S- Rajauli, Dist- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order impugned it has been recorded that petitioner himself accepts that he has criminal antecedent but then petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and at para 3 it has been clearly pleaded that the said recording in the order impugned has been made inadvertently. It is further submitted that the informant (BDO) alleges that one Balmiki Yadav made a complaint against the Mukhiya Bhajju Mahto and the petitioner (Panchayat Sachiv) for committing irregularity of funds given in different

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54253 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 2/3 schemes. Further, the Mukhiya transferred the funds to the account of the members of his family and also made expenditure of Rs.17,47,900/- for purchase of street light on quotation without floating a tender.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the thrust of the allegation is against the Mukhiya and the petitioner being the Panchayat Sachiv came to be implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner has not transferred any amount in the account of his family members. It is next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Kusheshwar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54253 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 3/3 Asthan P.S. Case No. 86 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

7. However, if the investigating officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner despite giving assurance to this Court is not cooperating in the investigation, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T