The High Court (Patna) rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a cheque bounce and criminal conspiracy case. The court found the petitioner did not furnish the Panchayat Bhawan or supply furniture as alleged.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is 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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43618 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -136 Year- 2017 Thana -GHOSI District- JEHANABAD
| ====================================================== 1. Ram Kewal Ram Son of Bhutali Ram, R/o Village + P.O.- Ratni, P.S.- Shakurabad, District- Jehanabad .... Petitioner Versus |
|---|
| 1. The State of Bihar .... Opposite Party ====================================================== |
| Appearance : |
| For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP 202 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER |
3 06-10-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 136 of 2017 under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner received cheque of Rs.1,57,500/- for completion of Scheme no. 2 of 2014-2015. It is, further, alleged that the petitioner withdrew Rs.2,00,000/- for providing the furniture and other articles of Panchayat Bhawan, but, the petitioner did not furnished the Panchayat Bhawan nor supplied the furniture.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased furniture and others for Rs.1,57,500/- out of Rs.2,00,000/-, the rest amount was spent on earth filling work in Chili Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has also done the soling work for completion of Scheme no. 2 of 2014-2015, but, it appears that the first information report was lodged on 09.06.2017and the Block Development Officer has made specific allegation that the petitioner did not do any soling work nor supplied the furniture and furnished the Panchayat Bhawan.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43618 of 2017 (3) dt.06-10-2017
2/2
Considering the facts, aforesaid, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected .
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
SA/-
U √ T √
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the present criminal prosecution.
Whether the petitioner satisfied the requirements for issuance of anticipatory bail.
Ram Kewal Ram
The State of Bihar
Prabhata Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
