STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SIDHI PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter relates to cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party Sidhi Paswan by this Bench on 12.5.1999 in Cr. Misc. No. 9822 of 1999.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this matter are that opposite party is an accused in a case under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the opposite party who is Junior Engineer and one co-accused who is Assistant Engineer is that they did not carry out the foundation of a bridge according to the prescribed specification and they did not perform the work for a sum of Rs. 1 Lac which they both defalcated. Opposite party filed an application for anticipatory bail which was heard by this Bench on 12.5.1999 when it was submitted on behalf of opposite party that although he does not admit the allegation made in the FIR but then he was ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the credit of Government account. On this undertaking it was ordered by this Bench that if after depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the credit of Government account opposite party surrenders before the Court below within two weeks from the date of the order and produces proof of such deposit and prays for regular bail, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bound of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter when co-accused Raj Kumar Rajesh prayed for anticipatory bail, his application was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 13802 of 1999 which was heard by another Bench of a Single Judge of this Court on 3.8.1999 which rejected the prayer of this co-accused for anticipatory bail and observed that full facts were not brought to the notice of this Bench at the time of hearing of the application filed by opposite party for anticipatory bail and who was granted anticipatory bail by this Bench. Learned Single Judge also observed that records of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party be placed before this Bench with Cr. Misc. No. 13802 of 1999. Accordingly notice to opposite party was issued to show cause why anticipatory bail granted to him be not cancelled. Opposite party No. 2 has appeared and filed reply to the show cause notice.

(3.) The case of opposite party No. 2 is that he is a Junior Engineer and co-accused Raj Kumar Rajesh who is an Assistant Engineer was an executing agent to whom a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs was paid for construction of a bridge but he misrepresented to the Court that opposite party was the main person who had executed the scheme. His further case is that pursuant to order dated 12.5.1999 he deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the credit of Government account and he has been granted bail by CJM, Madhepura and he never misused the privilege of bail. The further case of opposite party is that as per the direction of higher authority to execute the scheme of construction of bridge according to specification the same has now been done by him and co-accused Raj Kumar Rajesh at their own cost and he had filed a petition on 10.7.2000 before the Court of CJM, Madhepura praying therein to call for a report from the DDC, Madhepura regarding revised work done at the spot and accordingly CJM, Madhepura had been pleased to call for a report from the DDC, madhepura (Annexures A and B). By filing supplementary counter affidavit opposite party has filed order of the District Magistrate, Madhepura (Annexure C) from which it appears that he ordered a committee consisting of two Executive Engineers one District Engineer and two Executive Engineers for rectification of defects found in the bridge which is still under construction to examine whether as claimed by opposite party the rectification has been carried out or not and a report of this committee (Annexure C/1) that the defects have been removed and now the construction work has been carried on as per the specification and this rectification has been made at the own cost of opposite party and co-accused Raj Kumar Rajesh.