SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court







( 2026:JHHC:31518 )


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3929 of 2018
------
Sheo Shankar Prasad aged about 68 years, S/o Late Nanku Singh,
Resident of Village-Delha, P.O.-Delha, P.S.-Delha, District-Gaya
(Bihar).
… Petitioner
Versus


1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Alka Kumari, posted as B.D.O. at Barkagaon, P.O. + P.S.-
Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh.
…
Opposite Parties


------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate

------


P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

I.A. No.11623 of 2026
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with the prayer to delete the name of the
opposite party no.2 from the array of the parties in the cause title of this
Cr.M.P. as the opposite party no.2 has expired.
Considering the aforesaid facts, prayer is allowed.
1
Cr. M.P. No.3929 of 2018







( 2026:JHHC:31518 )


Registry is directed to delete the name and description of the
opposite party no.2 from the cause title of this Cr.M.P. and re-number the
present opposite party no. 3 as opposite party no. 2 with red ink.
This interlocutory application stands allowed, accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Cr.M.P. No.3929 of 2018
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the First Information
Report in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No.191 of 2017
corresponding to G.R. Case No.3145 of 2017 and its subsequent entire
criminal proceeding registered for the offences punishable under Sections
420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in capacity
of a public servant has committed criminal breach of trust and has also
cheated the government by ensuring that a substandard bridge is
constructed over the river Haharo within Barkagaon block of the district
of Hazaribagh. On the basis of the written report submitted by the Block
Development Officer, Barkagaon consequent upon inspection of the said
bridge by joint team of Engineers and Administrative Officers; wherein it
was found that the quality of the construction of the said bridge was
substandard-01 resulting in collapsing of the said bridge and inter alia , the
2
Cr. M.P. No.3929 of 2018







( 2026:JHHC:31518 )


petitioner being the Junior Engineer did not supervise the construction of
the said bridge properly; obviously with the intention of cheating the
government and misappropriating the government money.
4. On the basis of the said written report, police registered Barkagaon
P.S. Case No.191 of 2017 and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
not committed any offence. It is then submitted that though, initially the
proposed design of the bridge was prepared and approved by the Chief
Engineer, but later on, the contractor has submitted a different D.P.R.
(Detail Project Report) of the bridge where the structural design of the
bridge has been changed. It is next submitted that as per the circular of
PWD, the Junior Engineer is not competent to look into the matter of
structural design of the bridge. It is then submitted that though the
construction of the bridge was completed in February 2007 but the
inspection report of the bridge was submitted on 24.08.2016 and during
the said period, huge amount of sand was removed and smuggled from
both ends resulting in formation of delta in floor bed area of the bridge
and it changed the flow of water from both ends and by removal of such
sand in huge quantity, damage was caused to the bridge from both ends.
It is further submitted that due to unprecedented very heavy rain
approach road of bridge of one side was washed away and one part of
one side was damaged. It is next submitted that the aforesaid reasons
were the real cause for early damage, resulting in the collapse of the
3
Cr. M.P. No.3929 of 2018







( 2026:JHHC:31518 )


bridge. It is then submitted that for the non-maintenance of the bridge,
later on, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It is further submitted
that the petitioner was transferred from Hazaribagh Division on
30.07.2011, so he cannot be held responsible for non-maintenance of the
bridge thereafter and the petitioner also superannuated from his service
in 2013, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the
instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P by drawing attention
of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the State and submits that
during the investigation, as mentioned in para-20 of the case diary,
materials regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the said offence
of cheating and criminal breach of trust has been collected. It is next
submitted that the name of the petitioner has also come in re-statement of
the informant and in para-21 of the case diary as well as the statement of
the witness Rajesh Kumar Pathak, DDC, Hazaribagh, at para-22, the
witness Ram Nivas Yadav (IAS Prob), at para-23, the witness Om Prakash
Yadav (Executive Engineer), at para-24, the witness Chandra Bhushan
Sinha (Engineer-District Board) have also supported the prosecution case
specifically stating that the construction of the bridge in question was to
be observed and supervised by the present petitioner along with others. It
is then submitted that during the course of investigation at para-77 of the
case diary, it has come that in the light of the decision taken in the
4
Cr. M.P. No.3929 of 2018







( 2026:JHHC:31518 )


meeting of SEIAA, Jharkhand, the plea taken by the petitioner that due to
mining of sand, bridge was demolished is fallacious. It is further
submitted that in view of the direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner, there is no rhyme or reason to quash the entire criminal
proceeding when the investigation of the case is still going on but is slow
because the pendency of this case. Therefore, it is submitted that this
Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of
cheating the state government by inducing the state government to pay
money to the contractor for construction of a substandard bridge on the
river Haharo within the jurisdiction of Barkagaon block in the district of
Hazaribagh and because of the petitioner being the public servant having
committed criminal breach of trust by being instrumental in embezzling
the government property; has resulted in construction of substandard
bridge which collapsed untimely and the contention of the petitioner
raised in this Cr.M.P. are at best, the defence of the petitioner which the
petitioner can put forth before the Investigating Officer and if not satisfied
with the appreciation of the same by the Investigating Officer and if the
Investigating Officer still files charge sheet against the petitioner, then he
can raise his defence at the appropriate stage before the concerned court,
but this Court is of the considered view that if the allegations made
against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, then the
5
Cr. M.P. No.3929 of 2018







( 2026:JHHC:31518 )


offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered is made out
against the petitioner as well as the co-accused persons who were
responsible for construction of the bridge of substandard quality
obviously with ulterior motives for their personal gain at the expense of
the state exchequer.

8. Under such circumstances, this Court considering the fact that the
investigation of the case is going on against the petitioner for serious
nature of allegations, is of the considered view that this is not a fit case
where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed and set aside at this
stage.

9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

10. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted,
if any, is vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J )
.
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 28 of October, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj

Uploaded on 29-10-2026


6
Cr. M.P. No.3929 of 2018