Jharkhand High Court
Satish Sharma & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand Through Vig on 13 January, 2012
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3218 of 2011
1. Satish Sharma
2. Dev Nandan Prasad
3. Subhash Das ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. T.N. Verma, Advocate.
-----
08/13.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.
The petitioners, who are accused for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 477A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pray for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of their arrest in connection with Special Case No.24 of 2011.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1-the Assistant Engineer and the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 the Junior Engineers, who at the relevant point of time, were posted as such, have been made accused on an allegation that they had purchased certain agricultural tools worth Rs.9,93,740/- from S.K. Hardware, S.B. Trading and Aalpana Hardware under the scheme of MANREGA for giving it to the labourers, but during inquiry the said shops were never found to have been existing and as such, the case was lodged with an allegation that the petitioners, in conspiracy with the each other, have misappropriated that amounts, but the fact is that before the case was lodged on 03.07.2011, the said amount had already been deposited with D.C. Godda on 29.06.2011 and as such the petitioners cannot be said to have misappropriated the amount and thus, no case is made out under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, one R.K. Sinha, N.L.M. while was making enquiry in this respect, several persons stated before him that the aforesaid shops in fact were existing from where tools were purchased but subsequently it got closed.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that though the petitioners had claimed to have purchased the agricultural tools from the aforesaid shops, but those shops during inquiry, made before the lodgment of the case, were never found to have been existing and further it has come that nothing was disclosed by the petitioners as to whom, those tools were given and as such, the petitioners have been alleged to have committed offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners above named are directed to surrender before the court below within ten days from the date of this order and on their surrender, they be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand ) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in connection with Special Case No.24 of 2011 arising out of Godda (T) P.S. Case No.243 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.760 of 2011, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/