Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17523/2017rejected

Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-03Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17523 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -105 Year- 2014 Thana -PUSA District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Dilip Kumar Son of Late Nagendra Dubey, resident of village - Sakra Bazid, P.O. Dholi, P.S. Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Pusa P. S. Case No. 105 of 2014 registered for the offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 12.10.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22997 of 2015. The petitioner again filed for anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner has already returned the entire amount. It appears that the entire amount has been returned on 24.01.2017 vide Annexures 7 & 8.

It appears that the petitioner took advance of Rs. 24,97,100/- for execution of different schemes of agriculture department in the year 2011-12, but the petitioner did not complete any scheme. The petitioner was given six reminders, but

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17523 of 2017 (2) dt.03-05-2017 2/2 he neither submitted the vouchers of work done nor returned the money withdrawn by him. It is submitted that the petitioner returned the amount only in the year 2017. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 12.10.2015, but the petitioner did not surrender for more than 11⁄2 years and again filed this anticipatory bail petition. This fact itself shows that the petitioner has got scant respect for the order of this court. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Mishra/- U T