IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11127 of 2011 BINOD KUMAR DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 29.04.2011. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner being the Accounts Clerk is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was entrusted with Rs. 2,07500/- for construction of 10 rooms and Market Complex but he neither constructed the same nor returned the money. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that work of about Rs, 60,000/- was done but thereafter on objection of the member of the working committee, site was changed, thereafter in absence of issuance of work order the petitioner could not make further work. It is further submitted that scheme was of 2006 for which the F.I.R. was lodged by the Executive Engineer in 2010 who was responsible for non execution of work as it gets reflected from work approval order which is part of the F.I.R. as contained in 2 Annexure-1. In the circumstances, let the petitioner deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- before the learned court below within a period of five months which will be invested in some fixed deposit scheme which will be subject to final result of the case. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on provisional anticipatory bail for six months in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 130 of 2010 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C. J. M. Madhubani, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisional bail of the petitioner will be confirmed by the learned court below on deposit of the aforesaid amount within a period of six months. Let the order be faxed to the learned C.J.M., Madhubani in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 130 of 2010 at the cost 3 of the petitioner. Let the S.P., Madhubani, supervise the case as under what circumstances the Executive Engineer has not taken steps for execution of the work and how the Executive Engineer is not responsible for the wholemess. Let the order be communicated to the S.P., Madhubani by the learned C.J.M., Madhubani in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 130 of 2010 to the S.P., Madhubani. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)