Md. Saddam Badshah Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Md. Saddam Badshah Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who apprehend arrest in Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 363 of 2023 (offence under Sections 409/34 IPC relating to alleged embezzlement of Panchayat scheme funds), are entitled to anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Though a number of documents including the measurement book were on record, the petitioners failed to convince the Court about the actual work done and the certificates that State officials provided regarding the amount taken by them, the specific case being that work had been done only to the extent of Rs. 2,36,000/-.

Ratio / Principle

In that background, no relief could be extended to the petitioners and it would be appropriate that they seek bail.

Key takeaways

The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners stands rejected.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL REJECTED — alleged embezzlement of Panchayat scheme funds (Sections 409/34 IPC). Md. Saddam Badshah and Samser Alam, apprehending arrest in Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 363 of 2023 (lodged 16.08.2023 on the complaint of the informant, Block Panchayat Raj Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samitee, Ara Sadar) over alleged embezzlement of Rs. 10 lakhs under the 'Mukhyamantri Gramin Payejal Nishchaye Yojna' (Yojna No. 01/2018-19, Gram Panchayat Daulatpur, Ward No. 10, District Bhojpur), sought pre-arrest bail pleading that the FIR was lodged without assessing amounts invested in the construction (including boring) and that payments were released only after execution of work. Per the prosecution story, the Technical Assistant's measurement showed the petitioners received Rs. 10,00,000/- but did work worth Rs. 2,91,164/-; the APP (contending petitioner no. 1 was Ex-Ward Member and petitioner no. 2 Ex-Ward Secretary) submitted the money was siphoned off with far lesser work done. The Court found that, though the measurement book and other documents were on record, the petitioners failed to substantiate the actual work or any certificate from State officials regarding the amounts taken, the specific case being work of only Rs. 2,36,000/-. Held: no relief can be extended and it would be appropriate that they seek bail; the anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J; oral order dated 08-05-2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6627 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-363 Year-2023 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur

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

Md. Saddam Badshah SON OF MD. AKBAR SHAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAULATPUR, PS- ARA MUFFASIL, DIST- BHOJPUR

SAMSER ALAM SON OF MD. FIROJ @ MD. FIROJ KHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAULATPUR, PS- ARA MUFFASIL, DIST- BHOJPUR

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sudish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

4 08-05-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in

connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 363 of 2023 for the offence registered under Sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 16.08.2023 by the informant, Subody Kumar Srivastava.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Block Panchayat Raj Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Panchayat Samitee, Ara Sadar) issued a letter alleging that Md. Manjar Alam has filed a complaint regarding embezzlement of Rs. 10 lakhs under ‘ Mukhyamantri Gramin Payejal Nishchaye Yojna’ of Yojna No. 01/2018-19 in Gram

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6627 of 2024(4) dt.08-05-2024 2/3

Panchayat Daulatpur Ward NO. 10. It has been further alleged that in the light of the aforesaid complaint, measurement has been done by Technical Assistant, who found that the petitioners have received Rs. 10,00000/- for doing work under “Mukhyamantri Payejal Yojna” but the petitioners have done work to the tune of Rs. 2,91,164/- Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on the frivolous consideration inasmuch as without assessing the amount that has been invested in the construction that took place which included the boring, the FIR has been lodged claiming that only work less then Rs. 3,00,000/- was done. He further submits that the payments were released only after the works were executed.

5. Learned APP on the other hand, submits that petitioner no. 1 is the Ex-Ward Member while the petitioner no. 2 is Ex-Ward Secretary and both connived to siphoned off the money of the State Ex-chequer and failed to execute the work for which the money was taken. The actual work done is far lesser than the amount that was taken. Thus, in that background, the case was lodged.

6. Though number of documents including measurement book is on record, the petitioners failed to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6627 of 2024(4) dt.08-05-2024 3/3

convince the Court about the actual work/certificate that the State Officials provided to him regarding the amount that was taken by them as specific case is that work has been done only of Rs. 2,36,000/-.

7. In that background, no relief can be extended and it

would be appropriate that they seek bail.

8. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J)

Jagdish/-

U