Rajvanshi Prasad vs State of Jharkhand

R.R. Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 828 of 2009

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Treasury Officer at Chaibasa Treasury, was convicted for the offences under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/477(A) read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded with maximum sentence for one of the offences for six years on the allegation that the appellant in conspiracy with the officials of Animal Husbandry Department and also the suppliers has misappropriated huge money but there has been no evidence that there had been meeting of minds for committing alleged offence.

It was further submitted that: though one of the witnesses, P.W.88 has deposed about the taking of share of 5% of the amount contravention of any of the rules and thus the appellant has wrongly been convicted and, therefore, he deserves to be admitted on bail.

However, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submits that this is the case where officials of the Animal Husbandly Department, Chaibasa in conspiracy with the suppliers and also officials of the Treasury withdrew more than Rs. 8 crore on the basis of fake allotment letters and also fake supply orders and thereby they put the State exchequer to a great loss and that one of the witnesses, namely, Dipesh Chandak (P.W.80) has clearly deposed that he made payment to the officials of the. Animal Husbandry Department and 5% of the amount withdrawn to the Treasury officials including the appellant who passed the contingency bills. Evidences have also been led that some of the contingency hills of the amount of more than Rs. 5000/- which the Drawing and Disbursing Officer was not entitled to draw have been passed by the appellant knowing fully well that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer was incompetent to draw which would be evident from the evidence of P.W.79 and that some of the bills were passed even though it did not contain the amount of allotment, Thus, all these circumstances certainly go to show that the appellant was in league of other accused persons and thereby they misappropriated huge amount.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected. However, the appellant would be at liberty to move for bail after serving half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed by the trial court if the appeal is not taken up before that.

The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of.