Dismissed

Biplob Kumar Das and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2019AB/1389/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Gauhati High Court rejected the petitioners' request for bail. The court held that the case involved substantial misappropriation of public funds under the MGNREGA scheme and was not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application rejected; interim bail previously granted on 25.05.2018 recalled.

Biplob Kumar Das and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010098632018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : AB 1389/2018

¶5

1:BIPLOB KUMAR DAS AND 3 ORS

¶6

S/O BABUL CHANDRA DAS, VILLAGE GOBINDO POLLI, PO, PS AND DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM

¶7

2: GIRI BARUAH W/O UDAY HATIKAKOTI R/O KHARGHULI HILL SIDE PO KHARGHULI PS LATASHIL DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶8

3: MUKTAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE TAZAR UDDIN AHMED VILLAGE DALBARI GAON PO SOLMARI MIKIR GAON PS AND DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM

¶9

4: JOMIL UDDIN AHMED S/O NOOR ISLAM VILLAGE DAKHIN BADHARHATI PO HINDU BLOCK PS DOBOKA DIST. HOJAI ASSA

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K TALUKDAR

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N J DUTTA( ADDL. PP, ASSAM)

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 01-02-2019

¶19

Heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.

¶20

The petitioners, namely, (1) Biplob Kumar Das , (2) Miss Giri Baruah , (3) Muktar Hussain and (4) Jomil Uddin Ahmed , by this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are seeking prearrest bail apprehending arrest in Hojai P.S. Case No. 282/2018 (corresponding to G.R. No. 968/2018) registered under Sections 409/420/34 IPC, wherein they are FIR named accused.

¶21

Perused the case diary produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶22

It is seen that in response to a public petition that huge money was misappropriated in implementing the scheme of “Construction of Bundh from Pub Bogori, Dimaru River Bridge to ending part of Pub Bogori” under MGNREGA Scheme, a magisterial enquiry was made, in which the four petitioners, Assistant Engineer of Jugijan Development Block, Block Development Officer of said Development Block, the Junior Engineer of said Block, GRS of Hindu Block Gram Panchayat, respectively and two others, the President of Hindu Block Gram Panchayat and a Member of the said Gram Panchayat, have been found to be involved in malpractices in misappropriating the government money sanctioned for execution of the said scheme. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, directed the Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle to lodge an FIR, pursuant to which the said Circle Officer lodged the FIR and accordingly, said Hojai P.S. Case No. 282/2018 has been registered against the petitioners and two others.

¶23

It is seen that after obtaining interim bail on 25.05.2018, the petitioners appeared before the concerned I.O. of the case and their statements were recorded.

¶24

The concerned I.O. on investigating the matter, in his note, observed that the aforementioned scheme was of 2013-2014 that should have been completed within a period of 12

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

months and for the said scheme an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs was sanctioned which was released during the financial year 2014-2015 itself. On verification of the records and visiting the site along with the officials including the Accountant and others of the Block and the local public, it was found that more than 500 meters of work have not been completed though the work of the said scheme was shown to have been completed on 21.02.2015 specifying that the work of said scheme started on 11.05.2013.

¶27

The case diary reveals that the record seized reflects that Rs. 14,93,404/- was paid to the un-skilled labourers, Rs. 39,312/- was paid to semi skilled labourers and Rs. 7,76,150.36 was utilized towards materials cost and thereby spending altogether Rs. 23,08,866.36 for the said work. Case diary also reveals that the concerned Officer of the Block on visiting the site admitted that the work is not complete till date and 400 to 500 meters of the work is yet to be completed, though the records of the block reflect that the work of the said scheme has been completed and the money under the said scheme was already released. However, the job card holders of the concerned Gram Panchayat submitted before the I.O. that they have received their wages for the work of the said scheme that they have done in 2014-2015.

¶28

Considering the said material in the case diary that involves public money, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners named above in said Hojai P.S. Case No. 282/2018 and, accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners stands rejected.

¶29

The interim bail granted to the petitioners earlier on 25.05.2018 in said Hojai P.S. Case No. 282/2018 stands vacated and hereby recalled.

¶30

Return the case diary.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Biplob Kumar Das and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biplob Kumar Das and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

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

Ful Mahmad Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sunit Kumar Das and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sahab Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Sahab Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Biplob Kumar Das and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam