Gauhati High Court
Jahanara Khatun vs The State Of Assam on 9 November, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010197272022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2845/2022
JAHANARA KHATUN
W/O JAHEDUL ISLAM SIKDAR
VILL- SALHEKURA
P.S. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 09-11-2022 Heard Mr. A. Paramanik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/3
2. By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioner viz. Jahanara Khatun has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending her arrest, in connection with Barpeta Police Station Case no. 840/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 468/420/409/471/34, Indian Penal Code [IPC].
3. As per the FIR lodged by the informant, who is a job card holder of MGNREGA under 77 No. Gajia Medhirtary Gaon Panchayat, a number of persons associated with 77 No. Gajia Medhirtary Gaon Panchayat and Anchalik Panchayat as well as one Jahanara Khatun, Gram Rojgar Sahayak [GRS] are involved in misappropriation of substantial amounts from various schemes under the MGNREGA scheme by adopting various illegal means. The informant has alleged that despite he being a job card holder, the accused persons did not deposit his entitled amount in his bank account. The accused persons have been misappropriating the funds under the MGNREGA by depriving the genuine job card holders.
4. The petitioner is a Gram Rojgar Sahayak [GRS] of 77 No. Gajia Medhirtary Gaon Panchayat under MGNREGA. The statements of some of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161, CrPC and available in the case diary, go to corroborate the allegations made by the informant in the FIR. The witnesses have stated that the petitioner as GRS had deprived a number of job card holders from getting their legitimate dues from various schemes under the MGNREGA scheme and misappropriated substantial amount of fund under the MGNREGA by resorting various illegal means.
5. Having regard to the incriminating materials available in the case diary, collected during the course of investigation carried out so far, indicating involvement of the petitioner in misappropriation of funds under the MGNREGA Page No.# 3/3 which are meant for job card holders belonging to the lower economic strata of the Society, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC to the petitioner, who in connivance with others, is involved in acts of misappropriation of public money. Accordingly, the instant application for pre-arrest bail is rejected.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant