Patna High Court
Deepak Singh @ Deepak Yadav @ Bittu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing him to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Singh (also known as Deepak Yadav), was arrested in connection with a complaint alleging that he received an advance of Rs. 8.5 lakh for work under the Mukhya Mantri Nal Jal Scheme and failed to complete the project, thereby breaching trust and cheating under IPC sections 406, 420 and 409. The complainant, a ward member, claimed the petitioner embezzled government funds, while the petitioner contended he completed the work, citing a measurement book and a work‑completion certificate, and argued that the case was false and he was innocent. The petitioner applied for bail, asserting that he had been in judicial custody since 3 February 2026 and that the evidence did not substantiate the charges. The State opposed bail, maintaining that the work remained incomplete and the allegations were serious. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court found no compelling reason to deny bail and ordered the petitioner to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate. The bail was thus granted pending trial.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate decision on the petitioner's bail application in light of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the IPC?
- Whether the evidence on record, including the measurement book and work‑completion certificate, sufficiently negates the charge of embezzlement and justifies bail?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 409, 420
Subjects
- bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- IPC
- public procurement
- government scheme
- Patna High Court
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17195 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2020 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Buxar
======================================================
Deepak Singh @ Deepak Yadav @ Bittu Yadav S/o Rampravesh Yadav R/o
Village- Khanpur, PS- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suresh Prasad S/o Kishun Pal R/o vill - Kulhara, P.S.- Buxar Mufassil,
Distt.- Buxar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 302(C) of 2020 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution based on the complaint
petition, in short, is that the complainant is a ward member and
has filed this case against the petitioner alleging therein that he
had handed over advance money through checks to the
petitioner to the tune of Rs. 8.5 lakhs out of total sanction
money of Rs. 14,97,437 regarding the work related to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17195 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
Mukhya Mantri Nal Jal Scheme. It is further alleged that
Deepak Yadav is a contractor and he was directed to complete
the work within time but the petitioner completed work of Rs.
3,72,000/- and even after several directions, the petitioner did
not complete the rest of the work of the Mukhya Mantri Nal Jal
Scheme.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that it is a case based on a complaint
petition, from the perusal of which it is clear that out of Rs. 14
lakhs an odd only Rs. 8.5 lakhs was advanced to the petitioner.
He also submits that from perusal of the order of the learned
trial court, it is clear that the learned trial court has recorded that
from perusal of the record and measurement book filed by the
petitioner regarding completion of work and also a work
completion certificate issued by the technical assistant of the
Panchayat Raj department, it shows that the work has been
completed on 06.07.2023, but the work completion certificate of
the technical assistant does not show on which date the work
has been completed. He also submits that it is even clear from
the order of the learned trial court that the work has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17195 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
completed. The measurement book also goes to show that the
work has been completed. Moreover, the petitioner is
languishing in judicial custody since 03.02.2026.
5. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the
complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that
the work has not been completed by the petitioner and he has
embezzled government fund.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class No-5 (In-charge), Buxar in connection with
Complaint Case No. 302(C) of 2020.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…