Dismissed

Shiv Narayan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2018A.B.A./2563/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court bench considered an application for anticipatory bail under a case alleging misappropriation of government funds. The court rejected the application, citing the petitioner's lack of cooperation in the investigation and the serious nature of the allegations regarding criminal breach of trust.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner not admitted to bail.

Shiv Narayan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2563 of 2018

¶2

Shiv Narayan Prasad ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy, Advocate. For the State : APP

¶3

--------- C.A.V. on 11/09/2018 Pronounced on 13/09/2018

¶4

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Borio (Mirzachowki) P.S. Case No.56/2013, corresponding to G.R.No.128/2013 registered under Sections 406, 409 of the IPC.

¶5

The present case has been registered on the basis of complaint given by one Sushil Soren, Forest Sub-divisional Officer, Sahibgan, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner had joined in Mandaro area on 10.01.2011. In the financial year 2010-11 and 2011-12 funds was allotted for plantation in the side road under Manrega Scheme. The work of plantation started and letter was issued to Forest Range Officer to give the details about the advance despite the accounts were not submitted by him. It is further stated that thereafter spot verification was made and irregularities were found in plantation and such order has been passed to deposit a sum of Rs.27,31,482/- through bank draft in the Office of Sahiganj. It is alleged that despite direction neither the bank drafts nor the accounts have been submitted and it is alleged that government money has been misappropriated by the petitioner. On the basis of the allegations, the present case has been filed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the entire allegations is concocted and the petitioner has completed the entire plantation work in the road side. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 61 years and now he has retired from the service.

¶7

On the other hand learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and produced the case diary.

¶8

Perused the case diary. It appears from para nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 29 of the case diary that the I.O. has visit the place of occurance and investigated the plantation work and

¶9

-2-

¶10

found that the work is not satisfactory as some few plants were counted. In para 162 of the case diary I.O. recorded the statement of Paulus Tudu who supported the case and stated that the petitioner has misappropriated the government fund of Rs.27,31,482/- and no voucher of the aforesaid work has been submitted before the Forest Office.

¶11

It appears that the case is of the year 2013 and the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner was rejected by the court below vide order dated 08.03.2018 passed in ABP No.37 of 2018, thereafter this anticipatory bail application has been filed on 20.04.2018.

¶12

Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and the allegations against the petitioner is serious in nature , I am not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

¶13

Fahim/

¶14

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

Shiv Narayan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Narayan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adhin Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ajad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajiv Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bikash Singh Vs State of Jharkhand