IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12978 of 2008 ----- RAJA RAM PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.5.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No.477/07 registered under sections 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat and certain works in the said Panchayat were being executed and thereafter payments with respect to the work done by the contractor or the work carried out by the Panchayat Sewak were made by cheque under the joint signature of Mukhiya and the Panchayat Sewak. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations made in the First Information Report are to the effect that the payments were made more than the work carried out. It is submitted that the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Sewak are competent to withdraw the money and make payment. It is further submitted that the payments were 2 made on the basis of the measurement recorded in the measurement book by the concerned Engineers. However, later on a complaint being made, the matter was re-inquired and again fresh measurement was done and it was found that the work done was less and earlier in the measurement book the work alleged to have been done was in excess and, therefore, the payment was also made accordingly. However, later upon final calculation of the measurement and the payment, it was found that a sum of Rs.1,12,517/- was found to be an excess payment against the work done and thereafter direction was given to the concerned Panchayat Sewak to refund the money which was accordingly refunded and credited in the Bank account of Nalanda Gramin Bank, as referred to in the First Information Report. In the above circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he being the Mukhiya had made the payment under the joint signature of the concerned Panchayat Sewak as per the measurement book recording measurement by the concerned Engineers and as such, the petitioner could not be held responsible. Accordingly, submission is that the 3 petitioner is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. The learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that it is true that the excess amount was refunded back. However, it was not in dispute that the excess amount was paid for less work done. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, as prayed for. Considering the submissions, as noticed above, and on perusal of the allegations made in the First Information Report, it is directed that the petitioner Raja Ram Paswan, in the event of his arrest or surrender, in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No.477 of 2007, within a period of three weeks, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa in connection with the aforesaid case, on the conditions as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)