Allowed

Baidyanath Yadav @ Baijnath Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC12 Dec 2018CR. MISC./58110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge criminal bench of the Patna High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, a school principal accused of fund defalcation, was ordered to surrender within six weeks after furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon surrender within six weeks, furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Baidyanath Yadav @ Baijnath Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar — Corruption | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58110 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2017 Thana- MARAUAN District- Supaul

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Baidyanath Yadav @ Baijnath Yadav S/o Late Nagad Lal Yadav, resident of Village- Panch Bhinda, P.S. Morauna, District Supaul (Bihar).

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan and Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶8

Date : 12-12-2018

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Marauan P.S. Case No. 82 of 2017 dated 05.07.2017 instituted under Sections 420/406/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The petitioner, who was Principal of Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya Baskhora Marauna in the district of Supaul, is alleged to have defalcated an amount of Rs. 9,39,800/- along with other two co-accused from the building fund in the years 2006-07.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation was made by the local MLA in the year 2016, i.e., after 10 years of the work being completed and further, the allegation is

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58110 of 2018 dt.12-12-2018 2/3

¶14

that the quality of work was not good. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was only a member of the committee that undertook the construction work but all payments were made, as per the recommendation of the concerned Engineer and the President of the Shiksha Samiti and the petitioner was only a member of the committee. Learned counsel submitted that even with regard to there being destruction of boundary wall, in the year 2011 itself, he had written to the concerned authorities with regard to damage being caused to the wall. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of the roof having bended in the middle and water leaking from the roof, and that too based on the inspection after 10 years of construction, cannot be a ground, moreso in view of the fact that he was only a member of the committee and the works were certified before payment by the technical expert, who is an Engineer. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has since then superannuated in the year 2012 and it appears that due to some political consideration, the local MLA in the year 2016, had lodged the compliant.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. submitted that the inspection has disclosed inferior quality of work. However, he was not in a position to controvert that the complaint and inspections were made after 10 years of the work having been completed.

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58110 of 2018 dt.12-12-2018 3/3

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-I, Supaul in Marauna P.S. Case No. 82 of 2017, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶18

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

¶19

P. Kumar

¶20

AFR/NAFR U T

Baidyanath Yadav @ Baijnath Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baidyanath Yadav @ Baijnath Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

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

Md. Zahid @ Jahid Alam Vs The State Of Bihar

Alamtab Khan Vs The State Of Bihar

Bibi Rukhasana @ Bibi Ruksana Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ashok Paswan @ T. T. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ahmad Mahmood Vs The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Muzaffarpur and Anr.

Vimlesh Chaudhary @ Vimlesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar