Chattisgarh High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2024
1
Digitally
signed by
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2024:CGHC:28350
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 412 of 2024
Gurpreet Singh S/o Shri Mahinder Singh Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Vasundhara Nagar, Bhilai-3, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Lakhanpur (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, P.L.
For Objector : Dr. Ram Narayan Khare, Objector in
Person through video conferencing.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order
31.07.2024
Heard.
1.This is the second bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.196/2021 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District-Surguja (CG) for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
2
2. The first bail application was withdrawn with the liberty to file a duly constituted fresh application in MCRCA No. 640 of 2023 vide order dated 16.10.2023.
3. The facts of the present case are that one co-accused namely, Rajesh Kumar Sahu was posted as In-charge Principal of the Engineering College, Lakhanpur (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.). Harishankar Chandra, Gurpreet Singh and the present applicant were also posted in the same College as Professor. On 01.04.2017, a fund of Rs. 66,00,550/- was sanctioned under the Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme-III which is the World Bank Project of M.H.R.D., New Delhi. It is alleged that the In-charge Principal of the College namely, Rajesh Kumar Sahu had drawing and disbursing power whereas the applicant and other two professors were members of the Committee. It is further alleged that the applicant who was authorized to sanction the bills, fraudulently cleared the bills and caused loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 66,00,550/-. It is also alleged that the accused persons fabricated forged bills and vouchers and embezzled the funds. In the audit report, misappropriation of funds was detected and a direction was issued to register an FIR. Consequently, the Police registered the FIR against the applicant and other co-accused persons.
4. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the 3 applicant on the same set of facts and allegations and WPS No.4878/2020 was filed seeking a direction to the University authority to serve an inquiry report upon the applicant before taking any decision. That petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2020. He would further submit that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in the case; WPCR No. 786 of 2021 was filed wherein an interim order was granted in favour of the applicant vide order dated 04.02.2022. Later on, the same was disposed of with a direction to the concerned Police to file the charge sheet but till date, the charge-sheet has not been filed. He would also submit that various representations were made against the illegal and arbitrary action of the University and with an intention to counterblast, an FIR has been registered. He would further argue that vide letter dated 18.09.2020, the State Government directed the Registrar, Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai (C.G.) to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law as the applicant was placed under suspension. He would further contend that the applicant only cleared the bills and vouchers which were prepared by the In-charge Principal of the Institution and verified by two other members of the Committee, therefore, the applicant cannot be held liable for any shortcomings and similarly placed co-accused - Sudeep Shrivastava has been granted bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1489 of 2023 vide order dated 20.03.2024. Thus, he would pray for the grant of anticipatory 4 bail to the present applicant.
5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the applicant. She would submit that the applicant in collusion with the other three accused persons caused loss to the Institute to the tune of Rs. 66,00,550/- and the applicant is a person who cleared the bills and vouchers. She would further argue that the present applicant was actively involved in the commission of crime. She would also argue that the other co-accused persons have deposited their share with the Institute whereas the applicant has refused to deposit the amount.
6. Dr. Ram Narayan Khare, Objector in person appearing through Video Conferencing, who at present is the Principal of the Institute would submit that the applicant along with the other co-accused persons embezzled the amount of Rs. 66,00,550/- and therefore, he was placed under suspension on 04.07.2020. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant and an order of recovery of Rs. 19,05,696/- has been passed. A letter was also sent to the Superintendent of Police, Surguja for taking action against the applicant. He would further submit that the applicant was removed from services. He would also submit that the other co-accused persons have deposited their share of embezzled amount with the Institute and thus, no case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
5
7. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No.9431 of 2023.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tarun Kumar (supra), held that to grant bail to the applicant, the ground that the other co- accused who were similarly situated as the applicant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted because the applicant was responsible for day-to-day operations of the company. It was also observed that the applicant's role was made out from the financial dealings, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns, where the applicant was either a shareholder or director whereas in the present case, the applicant was a member of the Committee and at the relevant time, the applicant was appointed to the college and the allegation against him is that he cleared the bills and vouchers submitted by the other three members of the Committee. The other members of the Committee have already deposited their share of the embezzled amount.
10.From a perusal of the case diary, it appears that a complaint was made with regard to the embezzlement of Rs. 66,00,550/- against the applicant and the other three accused persons. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant and punishment of a 6 major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect and recovery of Rs. 19,05,696/- was imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 20.10.2021. An FIR was also registered against the applicant and WPCR No. 786/2021 was filed, wherein interim protection was granted vide order dated 04.02.2022. Admittedly, at the relevant time, the applicant was appointed to the college and the allegation against him is that he cleared the bills and vouchers submitted by the other three members of the Committee. The other members of the Committee have already deposited their share of the embezzled amount.
11.Taking into consideration the fact that on the same set of facts and allegations, a penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the applicant and he has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 19,05,696/- with the Institute and at the same time, an FIR has been registered; in WPCR No.786/2021, interim protection was granted vide order dated 04.02.2022 and later on, that petition was disposed of with a direction to the Police to submit the police report according to the provisions of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. but till date, the police report has not been submitted; similarly placed co- accused - Sudeep Shrivastava has been granted bail by this Court; further, the allegation against the applicant is that he cleared the bills and vouchers submitted by the other three members of the Committee, therefore in the opinion of this Court, a strong case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the 7 present applicant. Therefore, the instant MCRCA is allowed.
12.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required.
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
13. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicant. The concerned Trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made herein above. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi