IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44515 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR JHA, SON OF BRAHAMDEO JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHAKHRA TOLA, KALYANPUR, POLICE STATION SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE ----------- 2. 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case is under sections 161, 162, 163 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is said to be Up-Mukhiya of Jhakhra Gram Panchayat and the allegation against him in the first information report is that while seven beneficiaries of Indira Awas Yojna were coming back after receiving allotment of money for construction of their houses, he forcibly snatched away Rs.5000/- each from all the beneficiaries. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sections 161, 162 and 163 of the I.P.C. have been deleted from the Code long back and since he was Up Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and the allegation against petitioner is of snatching Rs.5000/- each from all the beneficiaries, Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention - 2 - of Corruption Act will not apply in this case. This is a bail application and, therefore, veracity of the prosecution case has to be considered for allowing petitioner on bail. From the order of the learned court below, it appears that all the beneficiaries have fully supported the prosecution case. It is a highhanded act of public functionary, who, on account of his authority in law, has indulged into such a crime of forcibly snatching money from poor citizens which had been disbursed under the Indira Awas Yojna for construction of their house. The order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that the allegations are fully supported by the statements of the beneficiaries. No sympathy is called for in favour of the petitioner to allow him on bail. The application is dismissed. The trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial within one year. In case for no fault of the petitioner, trial is not concluded within the said time, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)