Bijendra Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68822 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-787 Year-2022 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Bijendra Jha Son Of Late Mangla Dutta Jha The Then Junior Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organisation, Madhepura Posted At Banka R/O Pratap Nagar, In Front Of Gayatri Mandir, Ward No.06, P.S.- Saharsa, DistrictSaharsa ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned court below.
As per the prosecution case, the co-accused Akshaywar Ram, the then Assistant Engineer and petitioner Bijendra Jha, the then Junior Engineer, did not complete the work, although Rs. 57,27,553.00was withdrawn in the name of Scheme No.1-7 of the year 2014-15.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68822 of 2022(3) dt.27-03-2023 2/2 case. He further submits that the petitioner has completed the work as stated in para 18 & 19 of the bail application. He submits that the co-accused was posted as Assistant Engineer at Local Area Engineering Organisation, Work Division, Madhepura and he was the In Charge of the said office and petitioner had worked under co-accused Akshyawar Ram. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.
Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has not completed all the work for the year 2014-15 till date. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 787/2022. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T