This is an oral order denying anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of misappropriating public funds. The Court rejected the prayer due to the nature of the allegation and material discrepancies in accounts, despite prior bail grants to co-accused.
Bail prayer rejected. Application dismissed.
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.60822 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2021 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
UMESH PRASAD SINGH S/o Sri Budhdeo Prasad Singh R/v- Goshai Tola, near at Kuan, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.387 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable u/s 420, 409 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of the report of the Block Development Officer, Naubatpur on 04.08.2021 stating therein that petitioner being the Junior Engineer of Naubatpur Block has got Rs.59,39,400/- sanctioned in contravention of the limit of Rs.12-13 Lakhs for the work of the programme in the name of Chief Minister Gramin Nali-Gali Pakkikaran Nikshya Yojana of ward No.7 of Gram Panchayat, Ajwan. As per informant, when report from working and managing committee of the ward was sought, the committee
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60822 of 2022(2) dt.24-02-2023 2/3
opined that only amount of Rs.46,19,683 was spent on the project and rest money was devoured by the petitioner in association with other accused persons.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case merely on suspicion. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. Petitioner is working according to the Rules and guidelines provided by the Government. It is submitted that earlier for the same block regarding violation of guidelines, an F.I.R. was lodged against the Mukhiya and Secretary of Panchayat and thereafter a direction to file a certificate case was given with a view to recover the amount but the informant lodged the present F.I.R. and implicated the petitioner as an accused. In the earlier case filed by the informant as Naubatpur P.S. Case No.343 of 2020, petitioner was not made an accused. The petitioner has intimated the estimate of the Scheme before the passing of the alleged scheme and he has got no knowledge about letter no-269 dated 17.01.2017. Petitioner has two criminal antecedent and two of the co-accused namely Ajit Kumar and Manoj Kumar, being the ward members of Ward No.7, have been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60822 of 2022(2) dt.24-02-2023 3/3
dated 03.11.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.70890 of 2021 and Cr. Misc. No.71460 of 2021.
Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that Rs.59,39,400/- was withdrawn from the Government exchequer whereas Rs.46,19,683/- was spent on the work for which the money was slated. There was difference of Rs.13,19,717/- which was not accounted for as to what purpose it was spent, which shows that misappropriation has been done. Furthermore, the other coaccused have been granted anticipatory bail on the basis that on the same set of allegation, two F.I.R. was registered.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for grant of bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.
This application is accordingly, dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
pallavi/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible to be granted anticipatory bail in the chargesheeted offence of misappropriation of public funds.
Whether the discrepancies in expenditure and repeated FIRs by the informant justify rejection of the bail prayer.
Umesh Prasad Singh
The State of Bihar
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
