Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 2 August, 2023
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 3138 of 2023
------
Sunil Kumar .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
------
Order No.06 Dated :02.08.2023 Heard both the sides.
The petitioner- Sunil Kumar is in custody since 03.11.2022 in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 354 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No.4714 of 2009 for the offence registered under Sections 406, 420, 34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.
Informant of the case is Deputy Collector, In-charge of NREGA, Ramgarh and the F.I.R. was lodged in pursuance to an enquiry conducted by the DDC, Ramgarh in the irregularities in the NREGA scheme.
The petitioner was Assistant Engineer and from the F.I.R., it appears that against the 52 schemes of NREGA, a sum of Rupees Four Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs was allotted by the D.C., Ramgarh to the Executive Engineers for execution of 25 schemes. The main allegation is that the amount that was received by the petitioner from Executive Engineers, was deposited in his Bank Account in violation of financial Rules.
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel on behalf of petitioner that it was departmental work to be executed and to ensure the execution of the schemes under NREGA and payment of wages to the labourers the amount was transferred to the account of the engineers for the execution of works. The petitioner had released the amount to the Junior engineers for the execution of works. There had not been any embezzlement on the part of the petitioner and the work was duly executed. Taking of the amount in personal account was at best a case of violation of the financial rules. It is submitted that co-accused persons have already been granted bail.
Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. The counter-affidavit does not disclose the amount alleged to be embezzled by this petitioner.
Under the circumstances, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit