IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 1. Cr.Misc. No.8046 of 2010 UDAY YADAV @ MALLU YADAV,son of Phekan Yadav,resident of village-Balua,P.S.- Belaganj,District-Gaya. .. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. Opp.Party with 2. Cr.Misc. No.33225 of 2009 BHUNESHWAR YADAV @ BHUNESHWAR PRASAD YADAV, son of late Ramdhani Yadav,resident of village-Atiyar,P.S.-Magadh University,Bodh Gaya,Dist.-Gaya. .. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. Opp.Party with 3. Cr.Misc. No.38933 of 2009 MANI PANDIT,son of Late Ramdeo Pandit, resident of village-Imadpur,P.S.-Parasbigha in the district of Jehanabad. ..Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ..Opp.Party with 4. Cr.Misc. No.36400 of 2009 LAL MUNI YADAV,son of Late Deolal Yadav, resident of village-Bulak Bigha,P.S.- Belaganj,District-Gaya. .. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. Opp.Party ----------- For the petitioners :M/s Anil Kr. Saxena, S.Jamil Akhtar, Dinu Kumar & Shivendra Prasad,Advocates For the State :Ms. Pronoti Singh,Addl.P.P. ----------- 02/ 16-04-2010 All the petitioners are accused in connection with Belaganj P.S.Case No.52 of 2009 dated 21-04-2009, registered under Sections 406/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all the petitions filed on their behalf have been heard together for convenience and the present order will govern all the cases 2 referred to above. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. According to prosecution case, certain irregularities were committed with respect to 17 developmental schemes of Belhari Gram Panchayat under Belaganj police station in the district of Gaya. The Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretaries are alleged to have committed offence of criminal breach of trust. Though in the written report submitted by the Block Development Officer specific amount of defalcation by any of the accused persons has not been indicated, but in the enquiry report dated 27- 08-2008 submitted by the B. D. O., Belaganj to the S.D.O. Sadar, Gaya, which is the part of the FIR, the details of all the schemes, the details of sanctioned amount and amount given as advance to the executing agent have been indicated. From perusal of the aforesaid enquiry report, it appears that advance amounts were given to the different executing agents and thereafter with respect to certain schemes some works have been completed, but with respect to some other schemes works have not been completed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Uday Yadav alias Mallu Yadav, submits that he is not named in the FIR as an accused, but on perusal of the enquiry report it appears that he has been named in the FIR with respect to Scheme No.3/2007-08 and total advance amount given to him Rs.7,500/-. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mani Pandit, submits that he is the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and he is said to have issued cheque in favour of the executing agent, Mallu Yadav. However, by referring to assertions made in paragraph-7 of the petition, it is submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,500/- has already been returned by co-accused Mallu Yadav with respect to the aforesaid Scheme of 3/2007-08. Petitioner, Mani Pandit, is also alleged to have issued cheque of Rs.7,500/- to the executing agent, Naresh Paswan, but it is submitted that bricks worth of rupees six thousand are already available on the spot. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Lal Muni Yadav, submits that he was an executing agent with respect to Scheme No.13/2007-08 and he was issued an advance of Rs.36,990/- against total sanctioned amount of Rs.36,690/-. Enquiry report suggests that the work allotted to petitioner, Lal Muni Yadav, was completed, but only allegation against him is that he had taken extra advance of Rs.374/-. It is stated that the aforesaid amount has already been returned by the said petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Bhuneshwar Yadav @ Bhuneshwar Prasad, that he was also the Panchayat Secretary and he is said to have issued cheque in favour of the executing agent, but he is not direct beneficiary from the said scheme. Learned counsel for the State after going through the 4 case diary, though has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that there is no specific allegation of criminal breach of trust with respect to any specific amount in the FIR against any of the petitioners and amount of defalcation as it appears from the report of the B.D.O. is small one, against which either work has been completed or advance amount has been returned, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today in the above noted case, the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, ,subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and subject to further conditions that: (a) one of the bailors must be a Government servant or close family members of the petitioners, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioners and (b) the petitioners shall make regular Pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing 5 themselves in person or through representation by their lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioners fail to make Pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners. AH/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)