Patna High Court
Tabish AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail as the alleged discrepancies stem from clerical errors and do not establish a prima facie case of fraud.
Summary
The petitioners, Tabish Alam and Bibhash Kumar Nirala, were named in an FIR relating to alleged defalcation of government funds in Gram Panchayat projects and were charged under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bihar Non‑Statutory (BNSS). They contended that the discrepancies in project costs were minimal (Rs. 400 to Rs. 5,000) and arose from typographical errors, mismatched muster rolls managed by the Panchayat secretary, and not from any fraudulent intent. The State opposed the bail application, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the factual submissions and noted that the differences were due to clerical mistakes and that the petitioners had not received any recovery notice. Consequently, the Court directed that both petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code despite the charges under Sections 318, 316, 338, 336 and 340 of the BNSS.
- Whether the alleged discrepancies in project costs constitute a prima facie case of defalcation warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- Section 482
- financial irregularities
- government funds
- defalcation
- typographical error
- muster roll
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38982 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2024 Thana- SHAMPUR District- Munger
======================================================
Tabish Alam S/o Shabir Alam R/o Mohalla/Village- Purabsaray (Kamela
Tola), P.S.- Purabsaray, Distt.- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 33737 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2024 Thana- SHAMPUR District- Munger
======================================================
Bibhash Kumar Nirala S/o Barun Dev Mandal R/o Mohalla/Vill.- Barhouna,
P.S.- Shampur, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 38982 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Kamal Nayan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammad Sufyan
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 33737 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Kamal Nayan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
6 22-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. Both petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Shampur P.S. Case
No. 176 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the
BNS.
3. The allegation against petitioners is to defalcate
government money by way of irregularities related with different
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38982 of 2025(6) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
projects in Gram Panchayat, Barhouna, District- Munger.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that as far yojna no. 5/2023 and 7/2020
are concerned there are difference of only Rs. 400 & Rs. 5,000/-
only. Petitioners being mukhiya and junior engineer worked under
this scheme against less amount than estimated cost of Rs.
4,93,800/- and Rs. 8,61,500/- respectively. It is also submitted
that similarly the estimated cost of third project i.e., scheme no.
3/2022-2023 estimated cost was Rs.3,37,700/- where in actual
the work was done for Rs. 3,71,532/-. It is also submitted that
petitioners never received any recovery notice. It is submitted that
as far last scheme is concerned i.e., scheme no. 9/2022-2023,
due to typographical error instead of 13.12.2022 date was typed
as 18.12.2022 and due to said reason the differences in the
estimated cost surfaced as it appears from the counter of the
department.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that main confusion
surfaced due to mismatch in the muster roll, the record of which is
completely managed by panchayat sachiv having no concern with
mukhiya and junior engineer. While concluding argument, it is
submitted that petitioner Bibhash Kumar Nirala is a man of clean
antecedent & petitioner Tabish Alam found involved in one more
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38982 of 2025(6) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
case, where he is on bail.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
note of fact as primarily the difference in estimated cost and cost
for which work done surfaced due to muster roll, maintenance and
typographical error of date as discussed aforesaid, accordingly
petitioner Bibhash Kumar Nirala & petitioner Tabish Alam, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a
period of four weeks, are directed to be released on bail, furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
A.C.J.M. II, Munger/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with Shampur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/
Section 482(2) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…