IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36288 of 2010 SHAILESH SRIVASTAVA SON OF SRI KAMESHWAR NATH SINHA, RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. F/8, KOSHI COLONY, BIRPUR, P.S. BIRPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL --- PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR—OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 3/ 26-03-2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a criminal prosecution registered under sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. as an accused, as he was working as Panchayat Rojgar Sewak of Bhim Nagar Gram Panchayat and he was required to make payment through cheque, but instead of that the payment has been made in cash and that fact has been admitted even by the postmaster. It further appears that the specific amount of criminal misappropriation has not been stated in the F.I.R., though there is some allegation that less payments were made to the labourers. It is also submitted that if some irregularity has been committed under NAREGA by not preparing the relevant records, then that allegation can be fastened against the postmaster and not against the petitioner. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a 2 period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Birpur in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 26 of 2010, G.R. No. 88 of 2010, subject to conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and subject to further conditions that: (A) one of the bailors must be government servant, (B) other bailor shall be a family member or close relation of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner, (C) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/ prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and (D) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either 3 by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. It is made clear that granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not mean that administrative action cannot be taken against him by the competent authority for his omission and commission. If the competent authorities are of the opinion that the petitioner is not fit to be retained on the post, then they are free to take necessary action in accordance with law. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)