A Single Judge rejected the petitioner's bail application in a corruption case involving embezzlement of public funds, citing criminal antecedents and failure to deposit the amount as reasons to deny liberty.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2716 of 2023
------ Basudeo Prasad .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
------ Order No.06 Dated : 21.06.2023
Heard both the sides.
The petitioner- Basudeo Prasad is in custody since 21.11.2022 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 459 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.1776 of 2015 for the offence registered under Sections 409, 120B of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag.
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is Junior Engineer and the allegation against him is that he had withdrawn Rs.2,50,000/- on 21.01.2009 for construction of office of Civil Surgeon, Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.02.2009 and Rs.2,50,000/- on 12.03.2009 for construction of Tahshil Kahchari however, amount of Rs.1,89,310/- was taken for construction of remaining work of Panchayat Bhawan and Aanganbari in Ichak.
After completion of the aforesaid work, he was required to submit Rs.5,02,209/after adjustment of the amount but the same was not deposited and embezzled by the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner had submitted on his part all relevant document and it was responsibility of the Assistant Engineer for adjustment of amount, but having failed to do so, the present case has been registered. The case is based on private complaint by Assistant Engineer without taking necessary permission from the Department.
Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner had embezzled Rs.5,02,209/- despite repeated notice served to him. He has criminal antecedent and is involved in similar nature of case being Korra P.S. Case No.42 of 2010 under Section 409, 410, 120B of the I.P.C. from his he has been remanded in this case. Before filing the present case, the informant had moved before competent authority for necessary permission.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Anit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer for bail should be allowed given the nature of the offences and the petitioner's antecedents?
Basudeo Prasad
The State of Jharkhand
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
