Patna High Court - Orders
Kameshwar Singh vs The State Of Bihar Through The C.B.I. on 10 July, 2014
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16722 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2012 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- BARH
======================================================
Kameshwar Singh, Son of Ram Singhashan Singh
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through The C.B.I.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16835 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2012 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- BARH
======================================================
Ravindra Nath Pathak, Son of Late Jagannath Pathak
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through The C.B.I.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16774 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2012 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- BARH
======================================================
Moti Lal Ram, Son of Late Ram Lal Ram
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through The C.B.I.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17039 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2012 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- BARH
======================================================
Vir Bahadur Singh, Son Late Mukteshwar Singh
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through The C.B.I.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17047 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2012 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- BARH
======================================================
Jay Narayan Singh @ Jag Narayan Singh, Son of Late Buchul Singh
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through The C.B.I.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16722 of 2014 (5) dt.10-07-2014
2/4
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17782 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2012 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- BARH
======================================================
Kedar Nath Tiwary, Son of Late Narsingh Tiwary
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through The C.B.I.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In all the cases aforementioned)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Premchandra Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC/CBI
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
ORAL ORDER
5 10-07-2014Since all these applications arise out of one case, as prayed for, taken up together and being disposed of by this composite order.
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
All the six petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B) read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 13(2) read with 13(1)(C) and (D) of the P.C. Act. This is a case relating to huge defalcation of money for which undisputedly the petitioners have also faced departmental enquiry/proceeding.
It is submitted, with respect to petitioners, namely, Moti Lal Ram, Vir Bahadur Singh and Jay Narayan Singh @ Jag Narayan Singh, that their cases are almost similar to the case of co-named accused, namely, Hirdya Nand Gond, who has already been granted the privilege by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25th June, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16722 of 2014 (5) dt.10-07-2014 3/4 2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17543 of 2014. It is also pointed out that likewise said Hirdya Nand Gond, the petitioner, namely, Vir Bahadur Singh, has been fasten liability of Rs. 3,00,000/- but from his salary, as per departmental order, Rs. 6,000/- per month is being deducted. Petitioners, namely, Moti Lal Ram and Jay Narayan Singh @ Jag Narayan Singh, each have been fasten liability worth Rs. 5,00,000/- and from their salaries Rs. 8,333/- is being deducted, whereas, petitioner, namely, Ravindra Nath Pathak, though also fasten with liability of Rs. 5,00,000/- and from his salary initially Rs. 12,000/- per month was being deducted but taking into short period of his service the balance amount has already been adjusted from his gratuity/retiral benefits.
It is further stated, with respect to petitioner, namely, Kameshwar Singh, that he has already been exonerated from any such liability in cash, but has compulsory been retired. Whereas with respect to petitioner, namely, Kedar Nath Tiwary, it is stated that whatever liability was fasten against, much more than that has been seized from his entire retiral benefits etc. That apart, all these six petitioners, as submitted, further undertake, if at any stage any more amount lying against, than already paid by them or adjusted from their service benefits, they shall pay the same within the period ordered by the authorities concerned, subject to any other order of competent authority in respective appeals preferred against by them.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case after taking into consideration the order of Co-Bench referred to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16722 of 2014 (5) dt.10-07-2014 4/4 above, in the event of filing duly verified application/s supported with personal affidavits by the petitioners before the court below making categorical statements of undertaking as stated above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks, let the petitioners abovenamed be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI - III, Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 3 of 2013 (R.C. No. 27(A) of 2012, subject to condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition to remain physically present before the court below on each and every date at least for two years or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier and in case of failure on two consecutive dates without giving any reasonable explanation or on any willful violation of the undertaking, the liberty granted shall be deemed to be cancelled.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J) Praveen-II/-
U T