Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21420 of 2017 (9) dt.28-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21420 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -12 Year- 2016 Thana -NIYAMCHANDPUR District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Chandan Kumar, Son of Sri Siya Ram Singh, Resident of village - Baraith, P.S. - Neema Chandpur, District - Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Neema Chandpura P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 309/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Begusarai. The accusation is that in the light of letter no. 587 dated 27.04.2011 of District Education Superintendent-cumDistrict Programme Coordinator, Bihar Education Project, Begusarai, Rs.7,00,000/- was released through cheque on 31.03.2016 in the financial year 2011-12 in the account of InCharge Headmaster of Primary School Sangokothi, Begusarai, for running of two centres separately for 50 boys and 50 girls. In the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21420 of 2017 (9) dt.28-11-2017 audit report of Accountant General, it was detected that Headmaster, Dinesh Paswan, In-charge Centre, Chandan Kumar (petitioner) and Rajmani Devi, In-charge Girls Centre have withdraw the said amount without running the centres. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the agreement at the time of receiving the cheque of Rs.7,00,000/- the responsibility was fixed to CRC Coordinator of Middle School Chandpura, who received the aforesaid amount, but petitioner, who is In-charge, Centre has falsely been implicated in this case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T