Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Kumar Khatri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 17 December, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRaDESH
M.Cr.C.37053/2018
(Vinay Kumar Khatri Vs. State of M.P.)
1
Gwalior, Dated : 17.12.2018
Shri Jitendra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Vivek Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent/State.
Shri K.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.
This is second bail application of the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. First one was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.7.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.21970/18.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.235/2018 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Ashok Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 407, 468, 409, 34 of IPC.
Applicant has raised two contentions. One, he has no role in verification of attendance of a worker to whom wages have been paid and such wages are paid by the Panchayat Secretary and the Sarpanch. Secondly, he has submitted a discharge summary from Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Okhla Road, New Delhi, where he had undergone Angiography on 28.01.2017 which detected Triple Vessel Disease. Thereafter, he had undergone OPCBABG*4 through Sternotomy on 31.01.2017. He was discharged on 08.02.2017 and at the time of discharge, his general condition was shown to be satisfactory. Placing such documents on record, it is submitted that applicant be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. He was advised to report in OPD II for stitch removal on 14.02.2017 between 3 PM and 5 PM. Thereafter, he was required to undergo Comprehensive Cardiac Check-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRaDESH M.Cr.C.37053/2018 (Vinay Kumar Khatri Vs. State of M.P.) 2 up (CCC) approximately after three months of procedure. Thereafter, there is no other documents showing that applicant had undergone surgery and Comprehensive Cardiac Check-up and any follow up in regard to his health status.
On the other hand, Shri Vivek Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per Clause 6.5 of the guideline dated 20.02.2013 issued by the department of Panchayat and Rural Development verification before payment of wages is to be made by the Sub Engineer and submits that investigation is still underway and, therefore, on such grounds opposes grant of anticipatory bail.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that one co-accused Shivnandan Singh Yadav who is working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat, was denied not only anticipatory bail but his bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. also stood dismissed and he has been taken in custody for custodial interrogation and also the fact that applicant had earlier filed Writ Petition No.2612/17 and Writ Appeal No.586/18 resulting in dismissal and withdrawal of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal respectively. Same issue was raised in the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal as is subject matter of this second bail application.
Though, this fact has not been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in his bail application that on the same subject matter he had earlier filed a Writ Petition and Writ Appeal also, but looking to the fact that applicant is constantly avoiding cooperation with the investigation for almost a period of one year and his Writ Petition and Writ HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRaDESH M.Cr.C.37053/2018 (Vinay Kumar Khatri Vs. State of M.P.) 3 Appeal have been dismissed respectively on merits and as withdrawn and there is provision in the guidelines for verification of pay slip by the Sub Engineer and further no such medical condition is presented as to warrant some extra sympathy, this application this application deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the affidavit of Shri Guruvachan Singh, S/o Laxman Singh, S.D.O.P. Ashok Nagar, M.P., who has filed a compliance report in which it is mentioned that Programme Officer, MGNREGA Janpad Panchayat, Ashok Nagar, had issued letter dated 13.08.2018 to the S.D.O.P., Ashok Nagar, M.P. in which it is mentioned that investigation is pending in the matter.
Applicant has produced a communication dated 13.08.2018 issued by the Programme Officer, MGNREGA Scheme, in which it is mentioned that attendance on muster is marked by Gram Raj Sachiv/Panchayat Sachiv. Sub Engineer only verifies the work on the spot and it does not include verification of Labourers within the domain of the work of Sub Engineer. This is contrary to the Govt. guidelines filed by the State issued on 20.02.2013 under signatures of Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development department, in which it is mentioned that after valuation from the Sub Engineer, he has to get sanction for the payment and then payment receipt is to be issued.
In fact, paragraph 8 deals with the responsibilities and duties of Sub Engineer. In paragraph 8.5 it is mentioned as under:-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRaDESH M.Cr.C.37053/2018 (Vinay Kumar Khatri Vs. State of M.P.) 4 Þ8-5 izfrfnu fu/kkZfjr etnwjh izkIr djus gsrq etnwjksa }kjk fd;s tkus okyh dk;Z dh ek=k ¼VkLd½ dh tkudkjh nsukAß In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that contention of the applicant that he has absolutely no role in fixing the responsibility and attendance of the labourers is incorrect and even the Programme Officer has given wrong information to the S.D.O.P, Ashok Nagar, vide his communication dated 13.08.2018 omitting to mention terms and condition of the provisions contained in 8.5. State Government i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, will be free to take appropriate action against the author of communication dated 13.08.2018 i.e. the Programme Officer, MGNREGA scheme, Janpad Panchayat, Ashok Nagar for giving incorrect and incomplete information to the S.D.O.P. Ashok Nagar.
In view of the foregoing reasons, this bail application is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge mani SUBASRI MANI 2018.12.18 18:20:02 +05'30'