Jharkhand High Court
Jai Kishore Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 5 April, 2016
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 9126 of 2015
Jay Kishore Choudhary ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State-Vigilance : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
--------
09/ 05.04.2016Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Vigilance.
The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 161, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 &/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 93 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 47-A of 2010.
The FIR was instituted only against the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer for defalcation of Government fund under the various projects of MNREGA Scheme. From the FIR, it is apparent that Rs. 19,51,736/- was advanced to the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, but the work was carried out only to the tune of Rs. 35,100/- and the entire money amounting to Rs. 19,16,636/- was misappropriated by the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer.
The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Executive Engineer and he was not named as an accused in this case. In course of investigation, the petitioner has been made accused finding that the petitioner at the relevant time being the Executive Engineer had advanced the entire money to the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer without any work having been carried out at the spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and prior to lodging of the FIR, the petitioner had already initiated actions against the erring Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer for misappropriation of money and had written to the concerned higher officials about the offence committed the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer. Those documents, initiated by the petitioner have been brought on record. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the State-Vigilance on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail pointing out from the case diary that at the relevant time, petitioner being the Executive Engineer had advanced the entire money to -2- the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer without any work having been carried out by them. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State- Vigilance that the measurement book was called for from the petitioner, but the same was not made available to the Vigilance.
In reply to this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by that time, the petitioner had been transferred and he had already handed over the charge.
In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Jay Kishore Choudhary, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 93 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 47-A of 2010.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) Amitesh/-