Vijay Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Outcome
Bail granted
from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482(2)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ORAL ORDER 2 29-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sabour (Goradih) P.S. Case No.37 of 2024 registered under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier, his prayer for bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46645 of 2024.
As per the prosecution case, the informant who is Programme Officer, Goradih in the light of letter No.168 dated
25.01.2024 with respect to MNREGA Scheme No.1 to 5 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48777 of 2025(2) dt.29-08-2025 constituted an enquiry team and they have enquired into the matter and found that there are irregularity committed by the Panchayat Rojgar Sewak, Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and the Junior Engineer of Goradih Block, thereafter in the light of letter No.14189 dated 20.12.2023 issued by the Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, Patna, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty local politics. Further submission is that petitioner was then Panchayat Rojgar Sewak and has not defalcated a single government money. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the allegation of irregularity is general in nature. It is submitted that the DDC-cum-Additional District Programme Officer, Co- ordinator MNREGA, Bhagalpur after completing enquiry has fixed responsibility of realization of an amount of Rs. 2,36,557/- (two lacs thirty six thousand five hundred fifty seven) from the petitioner and the petitioner has deposited the said amount in the concerned account of the authority vide NEFT on 18.08.2025 subject to outcome of the final result of the case. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48777 of 2025(2) dt.29-08-2025 dated 22.05.2024, 23.05.2024 and 28.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 32026 of 2024, 31911 of 2024 and 41809 of 2024 respectively (Annexure-P/3 series). Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Operative part
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 bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Bhagalpur in connection with Sabour (Goradih) P.S. Case No.37 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 utkarsh/- U T (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.