Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Upadhyay vs The State Of Bihar on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80910 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2019 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Arun Kumar Upadhyay (Male) aged about 46 years, Son of Late Dhanush
Dhari Upadhayaya Resident of Village - Baramuli, P.S.- Sonhan, District-
Kaimur at Bhabhua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau,
Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jhakhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the Vigilance : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Special PP
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-10-2021
Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for
the petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State and Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned Special Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special PP) for the
Vigilance.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Bhabhua PS Case No. 462 of 2019 dated 05.08.2019, instituted
under Sections 467/ 468/ 471/ 419/ 420/ 205/ 193/ 219/ 120(B)/
511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner, who was the Mukhiya of Mahuari
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80910 of 2019 dt.05-10-2021
Panchayat in the district of Kaimur at the relevant time, is
accused of having raised forged bills to the tune of Rs.
3,64,000/- with regard to installation of solar lights in his
panchayat.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as
per the allegation, the petitioner is said to have raised the bill for
payment but no payment has yet been made. It was submitted
that the petitioner being the Mukhiya had from his personal
funds got the solar lights installed and after that he had raised a
bill before the authorities for payment which was denied due to
which he moved the Court in a Writ Petition and the order was
to make payment if the work was done and when the same was
not implemented he had to file contempt petition which resulted
in vigilance enquiry in which the authorities have now tried to
show the petitioner as the culprit. Learned counsel submitted
that the role of the Panchayat Secretary and other officials is
equal to that of the petitioner and if there was any dereliction on
their part, the petitioner should not be singled out for separate
treatment. In this connection, he submitted that Kapildeo Ram,
who was the Panchayat Secretary has been granted anticipatory
bail by a coordinate bench in Cr. Misc. No. 71503 of 2019 on
26.11.2019; Munajir Khan @ Md. Munazir Khan, who was the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80910 of 2019 dt.05-10-2021
Urdu Translator has been granted anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc.
No. 9332 of 2020 on 13.11.2020; Rajani Kant Ojha, who was
the Block Development Officer has been granted anticipatory
bail in Cr. Misc. No. 82143 of 2019 on 08.03.2021 and
Kanhaiya Ram, who was the Block Welfare Officer has been
granted anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 3978 of 2020 on
03.09.2020.
5. Learned Special PP for the Vigilance submitted that
the petitioner being the Mukhiya had indulged in grave
irregularities. Firstly, it was submitted that the petitioner in the
capacity of Mukhiya had no authority to get the work executed
or to raise a bill which was the job of the Panchayat Secretary.
Moreover, it was contended that a procedure unknown in law
has been adhered to inasmuch as, the petitioner claims to have
made payment from his personal funds to the tune of Rs.
3,64,000/- for a work of the panchyat. It was submitted that such
work should not have been done in personal capacity and if so
done, no claim for the same could have been raised from the
government fund. Learned Special PP submitted that the
petitioner had also manipulated the records in the sense that the
money which was sought to have been used for installation of
solar lights was meant for the scheme of the year 2011-12 but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80910 of 2019 dt.05-10-2021
the same has been shown to have been completed in the year
2010-11, even prior to the scheme being sanctioned. Further, it
was submitted that the bill of the firm from whom quotation was
asked for, the Proprietor had categorically stated during enquiry
that the same was forged and fabricated and surprisingly, he got
the license for the work and his TIN number in the year 2012
whereas in February, 2010 itself the work is said to have been
completed and payment made.
6. Learned APP adopted the arguments of learned
Special PP for the Vigilance.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the
Court finds that role and conduct of the petitioner is not above
board. He being the Mukhiya, that is, the head of the panchayat
and himself creating the bill for payment and also claiming to
have paid from his personal fund is not the conduct which is
expected in the normal course of human behavior. Further, as
per the records itself, the money was utilized in February, 2010
when the scheme was neither sanctioned nor it was for that year
as it was for the next financial year 2011-12. Even the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that four others
have been granted bail, their case cannot be said to be identical
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80910 of 2019 dt.05-10-2021
to the petitioner for the simple reason that they were not the
persons who claim to have made payment or who have
presented the bill seeking payment from government fund. It
cannot also be lost sight of that witnesses, including the
proprietor of the firm which is said to have been executed the
work and given quotation as also the Panchayat Secretary and
others have stated that it was the petitioner who himself had
presented the bills claiming to have already made the payment
to the firm. Thus, on an overall view of the matter, the Court is
not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
9. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner, it is observed that if the petitioner appears
before the Court below within six weeks from today and prays
for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in
accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present
order.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
