IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28616 of 2010 ARUN KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 20.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. There are three schemes of Banhara Panchayat in which there is financial irregularity, temporary embezzlement or real embezzlement. Submission of learned counsel is two fold; firstly, petitioner is not the executive agent of any of the schemes and secondly all the three schemes are not completed rather was under progress. For the first scheme, there is clear mention that Smt. Sushila Devi was executive agent, scheme was for Rs. 11,36,700/- in which advance was given only Rs. 8,75,000/- and work done is shown of Rs. 8,75,000/-, second scheme is for Rs. 7,36,600/- in which advance was also for Rs. 3,25,000/- and work done is shown of Rs. 3,62,735/-, third one is for Rs. 29,49,000/-, money advanced is Rs. 3,75,000/- and work done is shown of Rs. 1,44,454/-. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of communication of this order, the above 2 named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2010, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, at the stage of hearing the case on charge matter, justification of bail to the petitioner shall be re-considered by the trial court. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)