Narayan Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2011

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Narayan Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2011

Bench: H. C. Mishra

     IN     THE    HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        B. A. No. 2866 of 2011
     Narayan Mahato                                  .... ...         Petitioner
                                  Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                           ..... ...       Opposite Party
                               --------
            CORAM       :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
                               ------
     For the Petitioner        :        Mr. R.S.Majumdar, Sr. Advocate
                                        & Mr. K.K.Shrivastava, Advocate
     For the State             :        Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Spl. P.P.
                                ------

3/ 13.07.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. for the Prosecution.

The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 403, 406, 409, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with Special Case No. 85 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 68 of 2010.

The case relates to huge bungling of Government fund in construction work of school buildings in the district of Bokaro. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was the District Engineer and he was responsible for construction works in five school buildings. The petitioner was responsible for allotment of the construction work to one Ashok Kumar Bharti, who was only an Assistant Teacher, but he was shown as junior engineer and the work was allotted to him. Subsequently by the order of the High Court passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 1530 of 2009 vide order dated 22.5.2009 it was directed that said Ashok Kumar Bharti should stop discharging duties of a junior engineer and he was directed to hand over the supervision of the construction of 124 school buildings that was entrusted to him. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, said Ashok Kumar Bharti was asked to stop the works and the works already executed by him till then were got measured and the rest amount was ordered to be refunded, which the F.I.R. shows, that the same was refunded by Ashok Kumar Bharti and the rest works were handed over to another junior engineer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner though responsible for allotting the construction work to Ashok Kumar Bharti but from the F.I.R., it would appear that there was no loss to the Government as the works executed by Ashok Kumar Bharti were properly measured and the rest amount was recovered from him. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for bail.

Learned Special P.P. appearing on behalf of the Vigilance has opposed the prayer for bail and has pointed out that from the case diary, it is apparent that this petitioner was responsible for allotting the works to Ashok Kumar Bharti, who was only an assistant teacher, and he was bribed for the same.

In the facts of this case, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had allotted the work to an unqualified person on the basis of bribe, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Narayan Mahato, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court