This order refuses the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a Panchayat Sachiv, who faced allegations of defalcation of government pension money.
Prayer for anticipatory bail refused.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30525 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2017 Thana -BARHARIA District- SIWAN
======================================================
Sudhist Prasad (Panchayat Sachiv), S/o Sudama Prasad, resident of VillageGyaspur, P.S.- Guthani, District- Siwan.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Rai,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with a case registered under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation in brief is that the petitioner-Panchayat Sachiv at relevant point of time was incharge of four Panchayats for distribution of pension under the “Samazik Surksha Pension”. He was required to disburse the pension and return the remaining amount each day to the office of the Block but the money was not returned every day; neither any account of distribution of pension was given and had defalcated government money to the tune of Rs.10,58,950/-. Notice was earlier issued to him to deposit the amount but the amount was not deposited.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30525 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017
2/2
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact,
the cash was kept in his Almirah and the Vikash Mitra Ashok Kumar Ram committed theft for which he had earlier lodged the police case. However, it appears that petitioner kept the cash in his personal custody, he ought to have deposited every day in the office of the B.D.O.
Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused in connection with Barharia P.S. Case No.80 of 2017 pending in the court of C.J.M., Siwan.
(Arun Kumar, J)
N.H./-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sudhist Prasad
The State of Bihar
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
