IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.647 of 2008 CHANDRA BILAS SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.3013 of 2008 ANUGRAH NARAIN CHOWDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 8. 5.8.2008 Both these petitions arise out of Paraiya P.S.Case No. 79 of 2007 under Sections 409,420 and 120(B) of the Indian penal Code. It was a scheme under which a drainage was to be constructed for draining out excess water from a chunk of fields. The total estimated cost was at Rs. 4,81,800/- out of which petitioner Chandra Bilas Sharma who was appointed agent for execution of the said scheme received Rs. 3,57000/-. There was no complaint about the quality of the work of the above noted scheme as regards the walls of the drainage, but what is reported through the F.I.R. is that the top of the drainage which roofing could have been of one foot thickness was halved and the top roofing was only 6” in thickness. The F.I.R. does not mention as to what was the length and width of 2 the drainage and, as such, it is very difficult for this Court to appreciate as to what exactly could be defalcated amount by halving the thickness. The F.I.R. states it at Rs. 18,503/-. I have before me the records of the scheme and on perusal of the same I also could not locate as to what could be the length and width of the top concrete to be put over the drainage so as to getting the exact amount which could have been spent on its construction if thickness could have been at one foot. At any rate, it is not denied that the thickness was halved to 6”. The petitioner Anugrah Narain Choudhary was the Junior Engineer and he had the responsibility of overseeing the construction of the drainage as per the estimated dimensions and standards. But, in spite of the top of the drainage of being halved by 6” this petitioner created false record by mentioning in the Measurement Book that the thickness of the top of the drainage was at one foot. As such, Section 120(B) of the Indian penal Code. 3 Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner Anugrah narain Choudhary, Shri Shakeel Ahmad Khan and learned counsel for petitioner Chandra Bilas Sharma were submitting that at any rate there was no defect found in the completion of the scheme except as pointed out above in laying down the concrete top of the drainage and that cost has been estimated at Rs. 18503/- and petitioner Anugrah Narain Choudhary has deposited the amount in the Block Office by Nazir’s receipt no. 239115 and as such this appears a case for admitting the two petitioners to bail. It was further contended that the above deposit of the amount is mentioned in the F.I.R. itself and considering that fact, the Court should admit the two petitioners to anticipatory bail. The Court has a different view in the matter that it is, firstly, a criminal breach of trust as also a case of falsification of account, for, the petitioner Anugrah Narain Choudhary in spite of finding that the thickness of the top of the drainage was only 6“ created a fake and wrong Measurement book 4 showing its thickness at one foot. The other angle of viewing the entire fact of the case is that by creating a sub-standard top of the drainage the petitioners not only have misappropriated the fund but also created another window for the future repair or maintenance besides inconveniencing the general public by weakening the constructed drainage. The Court views such attempts with all seriousness and considering that I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, this order shall not hinder the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, as and when the petitioners pray for regular bail who shall consider that the petitioner Anugrah Narain Choudhary has deposited the amount and he may face the departmental proceedings for indulging into acts of moral turpitude and misappropriation. With the above observations, both the petitions are dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)