IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.35919 of 2010
BIRA RAM S/O LATE SHEOPUJAN RAM, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE-SARAFAR, P.O.-JAMORHI, P.S.-TARARI,
DISTRICT- BHOJPUR(BIHAR),PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT Qr.No.H/39. ARGORA HOUSING COLONY,DISTRICT-
RANCHI (JHARKHAND).
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
4 26.3.2011 Let, a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioner to day in the court, be kept on the record.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a criminal
prosecution registered under sections 409,467,468,471 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted that at the relevant time,the
petitioner was posted and working as Executive Engineer,
Sasaram,Camp Dehri-on – Sone in the District of Rohtas in
theTubewell Division under Department of Irrigation, and he
is not named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-I as an accused.
According to the prosecution case, co-accused Raj
Kumar Singh was appointed as contractor for sinking
Government tubewell in the District of Rohtas and for that
purpose he was made an advance of Rs.8,68,000/-. However,
during course of inspection it was found that work worth
Rs.4,04,000/-only was completed by the aforesaid contractor
2
and he had received excess amount of Rs.4,64,000/-. During
course of investigation the involvement of the petitioner and
some other government officials also transpired for
commission of crime in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
apart from criminal prosecution, the petitioner was subjected
to departmental proceeding also for his omission and
commission for execution of certain scheme of the
government in the district of Rohtas. On conclusion of the
departmental proceeding , punishment of censor was inflicted
upon him and it was further directed that an amount of
Rs.1,89,580.35 shall be recovered from the petitioner. The
order of punishment in the departmental proceeding has been
brought on record as Annexure-3 to this application.
By filing supplementary affidavit it has been stated
that the aforesaid entire amount of Rs.1,89,580.35 has already
been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. It has also
been highlighted that the petitioner is now at the verge of
retirement.
Be that as it may, in view of the fact that petitioner
was subjected to the departmental proceeding and a
punishment of censor has been inflicted upon him and an
3
amount of Rs.1,89,580.35 has already been recovered from
his salary, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed, subject to
verification of fact about recovery of the aforesaid amount by
the court below. The petitioner, Bira Ram, in the event of his
arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks
from today shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas
at Sasaram, in connection with Akodhi Gola P.S. Case
No.29/03 dated 3.5.2003 subject to the conditions laid down
under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also subject to further
conditions that:
(A) one of the bailors must be a government servant or a
close family members of the petitioner, who will file an
affidavit in the court below showings his/her relationship
with the petitioner,
(B) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar
nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/
prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for
cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a
petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose
of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity
4
of hearing to all concerned and
(C) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the
court below in the present case either by appearing himself
in person or through representation by his lawyer on each
and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner
fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty
to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
It is further directed that the learned Magistrate at
the time of acceptance of bail bonds of the petitioner shall
direct the petitioner to produce relevant record/document
within a reasonable time fixed by him to prove that, as a
matter of fact, amount of Rs.1,89.580.35 has already been
recovered from his salary. If the learned Magistrate is
satisfied about recovery, then the petitioner shall be allowed
to remain on bail on the terms and conditions indicated
above. However, if the learned Magistrate comes to a finding
that the aforesaid amount has not been recovered from the
salary of the petitioner and the statement made before this
Court is false, then in that case learned Magistrate shall be
obliged to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner and he shall
be taken into custody, whereafter the petitioner will be at
5
liberty to seek regular bail, if so advised.
(Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)
Anilkrs.sinha