Rambabu Sah @ Rambabu Saw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16809 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2017 Thana- SANDESH District- Bhojpur ====================================================== RAMBABU SAH @ RAMBABU SAW Son of Late Chandrama Saw resident of Village - Narayanpur, Police Station - Sandesh, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-08-2018 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Sandesh P.S.Case No. 162 of 2017 registered under Sections 120B, 409 and 420 of the Indian penal Code. Accusation against the petitioner is that his wife, Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat, issued a cheque in the name of her husband, for payment of allowances to all the Punches of the financial years to the tune of Rs. 1,81,000/- but he misappropriated the said amount.

Submission is that there is no hand in misappropriation of money by the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated by the dominant caste due to some ulterior motive and Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch were granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16809 of 2018(4) dt.03-08-2018 2/2 Whereas learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, referring relevant parts of the case diary, submits that there is sufficient evidence that this petitioner withdrawn the amount of three financial years for payment to all the Punches by cheque issued in his name by the Sarpanch, who happens to be his wife, and misappropriated the amount.

Having considered the nature of scam, the Court is not persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within nine months. If trial does not get concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer of bail.

(Arun Kumar, J) sujit/- U T