Allowed

Imen Soren v. The State of Bihar through the Vigilance, Bihar.

Patna HC6 Aug 2021CR. MISC./27230/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a corruption case involving misappropriation of government funds. The court held that as charges were filed and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, bail was warranted on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties on specified conditions.

Imen Soren Vs The State of Bihar through the Vigilance, Bihar. — Corruption | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27230 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2015 Thana- PALASI District- Araria

¶3

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

¶4

Imen Soren aged about 50 years Son of Mathai Soren @ Bhadai Soren Resident of Village - Baraita, P.S.- Kasaba, District- Purnia.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Vigilance, Bihar.

¶8

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Diwakar Upadhyaya, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr.Arvind Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 06-08-2021

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶13

The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under section for offence under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13 & 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, all the accused persons named in the FIR misappropriated the Government money amounting to Rs.47,77,725/-. It is further alleged that without administrative and technical sanction of the higher authorities, money was advanced and work was not completed in terms of the project.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner at

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27230 of 2021(2) dt.06-08-2021 2/3

¶17

the relevant time was posted as Panchayat Secretary and worked as per direction of Mukhiya, BDO and superior officers as he had no power to grant administrative approval or to start any scheme. It is also submitted that several similarly situated co-accused have already been allowed bail by different coordinate benches of this Court vide paragraph 12 of the bail petition. Petitioner claims clean antecedent and he is in custody since 5.10.2019. Charge sheet has already been submitted as such custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the case.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Vigilance opposes the prayer for bail submitting that out of 14 schemes, he was contractor of 5 sachems and money was misappropriated by him and other accused persons without completion of the scheme as per its specification.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, materials available on the record and the fact that charge sheet has already been submitted and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the case and several similarly situated co-accused have already been allowed bail by this Court and petitioner is in custody for about one year and ten months, let the petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged on bail

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27230 of 2021(2) dt.06-08-2021 3/3

¶21

on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Bhagalpur or successor court in Vigilance case no. 04 of 2015/Palasi Police Station Case No. 34 of 2015 on the following conditions:-

¶22

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶23

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶24

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶25

Shashi

¶26

U T

Imen Soren v. The State of Bihar through the Vigilance, Bihar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imen Soren v. The State of Bihar through the Vigilance, Bihar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Rajbanshi Vs the State of Bihar

Tunni Ravidas Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Prasad @ Divyanshu Vs the State of Bihar through Vigilance, Patna.

Rakesh Rai @ Rakesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Ganga Paswan @ Gangaram Paswan @ Gango Ram Vs The State of Bihar