Jharkhand High Court
Shashi Prakash vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2014
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 10936 of 2013
Shashi Prakash ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : M/s Md. Mokhtar Khan & Anil Kr. Sinha, Advs.
For the State : A.P.P.
--------
2/ 10.03.2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.
The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 161, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with Special Case No. 52(A) of 2010 arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 101 of 2010.
The petitioner was posted as District Engineer in the District Board, Khunti, and there is allegation that in different projects Rs. 3,05,77,600/- was advanced to the District Board, but the work was done only to the tune of Rs. 1,77,82,600/- and the rest amount of Rs. 1,27,95,000/- was embezzled by the officials.
Earlier bail application of this petitioner was rejected by order dated 9.7.2013 in B.A. No. 3420 of 2013 in view of the fact that it was found from the case diary that the entire amount was advanced to the concerned Junior Engineer without any verification of the work done and even though no work was carried out in some projects as also in view of the fact that the work was taken from him by the petitioner even though the Junior Engineer was under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail submitting that actually the amount was advanced to the Labhuk Samitee and the Junior Engineer and the said amount are lying with them for which certificate case has also been instituted. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge that the Junior Engineer was under suspension. Learned counsel has also submitted that some of the co-accused have been granted bail in this case.
In the facts of the case, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that being the District Engineer, he did not know that the Junior Engineer was actually under suspension. Bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected due to the fact that the entire amount was advanced without verification of the works and even though no work was carried out in some projects. Accordingly, the connivance of the petitioner in embezzlement of the huge amount of Government money cannot be ruled out.
In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Shashi Prakash, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.