Shailendra Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shailendra Kumar, sought pre-arrest bail in Complaint Case No. 327(C) of 2022, registered for offenses under Sections 420, 323, 341, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involve committing fraud against the State in connivance with Panchayat and Block level officials regarding the implementation of the Nal-Jal Yojana. The petitioner, a supplier of materials, claimed to have been falsely implicated and was ready to resolve the dispute amicably. The alleged amount in dispute for the supply of materials was Rs. 13,08,000/-. The complainant is Rinku Devi, and the opposite party is the State of Bihar.
Held
The Court denied the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail. The Court noted the prevalence of fraud at Panchayat and Block levels involving significant public funds, often in connivance with government officials. However, the decision to deny bail was primarily based on the absence of GST invoices duly issued for the supply of materials amounting to Rs. 13,08,000/-. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to produce any work completion certificate or bills allegedly raised for claiming payment. The Court found these deficiencies sufficient to decline the grant of anticipatory bail. The issue of the petitioner's role as a mere supplier and the alleged involvement of other officials was considered but did not outweigh the lack of supporting documentation for the transaction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 327(C) of 2022, registered for offenses under Sections 420, 323, 341, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the allegations of fraud in the implementation of the Nal-Jal Yojana. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is merely a supplier of materials and has been falsely implicated. He contended that the alleged irregularities and fraud were committed by the Ward Member in connivance with the Panchayat Secretary, Mukhiya, and Block Development Officer. The petitioner expressed readiness to resolve the dispute amicably, asserting his innocence. Revenue/State's Contention: The State of Bihar and the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail, arguing against the petitioner's release.
Sections Cited
Section 420, Section 323, Section 341, Section 504
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 4 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 327(C) of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation is of committing fraud with the State in connivance with the Secretary, Panchayat Samiti and Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat Sedahan, District – Bhojpur.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any fraud and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is 2/3 contended that the petitioner is merely a supplier of materials and has been made prey for the alleged irregularities and fraud purportedly committed by the Ward Member in connivance with the Panchayat Secretary, the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, and the Block Development Officer in respect of implementation of the Nal-Jal Yojana. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation pertains to supply of different materials allegedly amounting to Rs. 13,08,000/-, and the petitioner is ready to resolve the dispute amicably. On these grounds, it is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and deserves to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
Mr. Raj Narayan Mishra, learned counsel tendered his appearance on behalf of the complainant and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Learned APP for the State has also opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
This court finds that the fraud at the grass root level, particularly, at the Panchayat level and Block level in respect of several schemes either of Central Government or State Government, huge amount of public money is swindled out in connivance with the Ward member, Panchayat Secretary, Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat along with the government 3/3 official like Block Development Officer and the District Programme Officer. The petitioner cannot be held to be the sole perpetrator of such crime. In the present case, the ward member has lodged the present complaint, may be because, she may not have received required amount of share in large scale commission of fraud.
In absence of GST invoices duly issued in respect of the supply of materials allegedly amounting to Rs. 13,08,000/- and also the fact that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any work completion certificate or the bills allegedly raised by him for claiming payment, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
mantreshwar/- (Purnendu Singh, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.