Allowed

Shankar Navnath Mirgane v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Aug 2014ABA/828/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court considered charges of cheating and misappropriation in a government scheme. The court noted the applicant faced administrative negligence charges. The application was allowed subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was allowed, requiring a police bond of Rs.20,000, no tampering with evidence, and weekly reporting to the police station.

Shankar Navnath Mirgane Vs State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.828.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.828 OF 2014

¶5

Shankar Navnath Mirgane ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr.Ritesh Thobade for the Applicant Ms.Alpa Javeri, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.S.G. Mhetre, API, Mohol police station, Solapur (Rural) – present

¶7

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE: AUGUST 5, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

One Sanjay Altekar has given a report against the applicant/accused and other 12 accused, pursuant to which the offences punishable under sections 407, 409, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered at C.R. No.187 of 2014 with Mohol police station, Solapur. It is the case of the informant that from 2.6.2014, he has been working as a Block Development Officer at Mohol. The Central Government in the year 2013 – 2014 launched a scheme known as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan, for the purpose of construction of toilets in the rural areas and under the said scheme, it granted Rs.1,29,43,077 for the Taluka Mohol. The said amount was deposited in the account of the Block Development Officer with the State Bank of India from 21.5.2013 to 28.2.2014. Under the said scheme,

¶11

1 / 6

¶12

aba.828.2014.doc

¶13

the persons below and on the poverty line, the persons from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes class, disabled, minorities and the families led by women are the beneficiaries and they were to be given Rs.4,600/for the construction of toilets in their house. The government officer working in the district village in the Block Development Officer were appointed to inspect the construction of the toilets to verify whether the toilets are used and also to inspect whether the toilets were really used or not. After verification, the beneficiary was expected to fill up a form and the information in the form is expected to be verified by Sarpanch, Gram Sevak and also the Extension Officer, Junior Engineer and finally, the Block Development Officer, after verifying the position, was to disburse the amount. Under the scheme, for each village, one independent Central Resource Coordinator (CRC) was required to be appointed. However, the Block Development Officer appointed only one CRC viz., Sameer Gaikwad, for the entire Mohol taluka. He was supposed to get Rs.75/- for each construction of a toilet. However, it was found that Sameer Gaikwad did not encourage any beneficiary to construct toilets and yet he was given Rs.87,150/- for 1162 beneficiaries. Two Gram Sevaks viz., Samadhan Jadhav and Nityanand Kulkarni, whose applications are stayed by the Division Bench, are also the beneficiaries of illegal amounts of Rs.10,25,000/- and Rs.2,85,200/- respectively out of this scheme unauthorisedly. It was also found that the beneficiary was entitled to get

¶14

2 / 6

¶15

aba.828.2014.doc

¶16

the benefit only once. However, out of 2394 beneficiaries, 257 beneficiaries got the amount twice or more than that and thus, there was excess disbursement of Rs.15,73,200/-. It was noticed that the government persons, who are working under the scheme, have deceived the government for Rs.29,70,550/-. The accused i.e., Hazrat Ibrahim Shaikh, accused No.1, Amarsinh Chandrahar, who was the Sanitary Officer (Swachhata Dhoot) (applicant/accused in ABA/861/2014), Hari A. Gaikwad, Extension Officer (Applicant/accused in ABA/934/2014); Bhanudas Kshirsagar, Extension Officer (applicant/accused in ABA/935/2014), Swati Gaikwad, Extension Officer (applicant/accused in ABA/933/2014), Acting Block Development Officer S.M. Mirgane, the present applicant, Phulsingh Chavan, Accounts Officer and Ganesh Kamble, Assistant Accounts Officer (Applicants in ABA/907/2014) and one Bipin Ingale, who was the earlier Block Development Officer, (applicant/accused in ABA/882/2014), are all prosecuted for misappropriating the government amount and cheating the government for the total amount of Rs.29,70,550/-.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the present applicant/accused was an acting Block Development Officer and he was Non-Gazetted Agricultural Officer, who was given the charge temporarily from 1.5.2013 till 31.3.2014. The learned Counsel submitted that he was supposed to sign at the end on the form because he was the

¶18

3 / 6

¶19

aba.828.2014.doc

¶20

last authority to sign the form. As a head of the team, he was not expected to personally visit and verify whether the toilets were constructed and were in use or not. The learned Counsel pointed out that departmental enquiry was held against this applicant/accused and the enquiry officer did not recommend any criminal action against him and recommended only administrative action. The learned Counsel submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent and has not committed any offence and hence, he be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Learned Prosecutor while opposing this application has submitted that the applicant/accused was an Acting Block Development Officer from 1.8.2013 till 15.9.2013 i.e., for a period of 1½ month. The earlier Block Development Officer i.e., Mr.Ingale had sanctioned the amount with regard to 26 persons and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,24,200/- was disbursed on or before 27.5.2013. However, the Block Development Officer disbursed amounts again to 24 persons out of the same 26 persons on 5.9.2013. Thus, he is responsible for disbursing the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- to the 24 persons for the second time. Learned Prosecutor further submitted that the police are still investigating the matter and the account numbers which are provided of some of these 24 persons, are fake and not the bank accounts. A list of 54 persons is also approved by this applicant.

¶22

4 / 6

¶23

aba.828.2014.doc

¶24

Perused the FIR. The prosecution is not in a position to show any statement of at least one person out of these 24 persons recorded by the Investigating Officer as to how the benefit was received twice. Considering the role played by the Block Development Officer, he was holding charge from 1.8.2013 to 15.9.2013 and as he was not required to physically inspect the toilets, he had approved the applications which were verified by the Gram Sevak, the Extension Officer, Sarpanch and the Junior Enegineer. Moreover, the departmental enquiry was conducted against him and it appears that he has been held guilty administratively as he was found negligent. It was necessary for the applicant/accused to verify the list of previous beneficiaries before disbursing the amount. It appears that he failed to do so.

¶25

Considering the scope of this particular matter, prima facie, I am inclined to grant the Anticipatory Bail Application subject to following conditions:

¶26

i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶27

ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶28

5 / 6

¶29

aba.828.2014.doc

¶30

iii) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station every Monday and Thursday between 6pm to 8pm for one month and thereafter, as and when called, till filing of chargesheet.

¶31

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶32

6 / 6

Shankar Navnath Mirgane v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Navnath Mirgane v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Ramchandra Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanumant @ Dada Nivrutti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailendra Dashratha Kawanekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harsh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajashri Kailas Zodage Vs the State of Maharashtra