Vinod Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66027 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-503 Year-2016 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Vinod Kumar Thakur Son of Late Nasib Narayan Thakur R/o Mahaveer Colony, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S.- Beur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Anju Kumari @ Anju Narain, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY CAV ORDER 09-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation, the petitioner in connivance with government officials named in the FIR, misappropriated the government money, amounting to Rs. 7,95,21,644/- during the financial year 2007-2008 to 2013-14.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioner was posted in land acquisition office, Muzaffarpur in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66027 of 2024(10) dt.09-04-2025 2/3 the year 2008-09, where the entire occurrence of change of nature/type of land and of showing houses on vacant plots had been done around 2007-08 and even according to the FIR, it was the officials and survey authorities in collusion with the Engineers and other staff of the construction division office, Muzaffarpur that the inflated amount of compensation was shown by them by preparing supplementary awards, which caused the alleged loss of the government money by making excess payment to the beneficiaries. The petitioner was not in any way responsible for such loss. It was not the duty of the petitioner to visit the site for making inquiries/investigation about the nature/type of the land going to be acquired or already acquired, nor he did it.

This was the job of survey authority Amin, Designers and other officials. It has also been submitted that in this case, out of 21 officials, 14 have been granted anticipatory bail and others have been granted regular bail. The case of this petitioner is of better footing. From perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the allegation is not specific against the petitioner rather it is against other authorities who are responsible for the assessment of award. This petitioner is only responsible for releasing the award on the basis of the assessment which was done by other parties.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66027 of 2024(10) dt.09-04-2025 3/3 no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.12.2024 by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is hereby confirmed.

7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- Sudhanshu/- U T