Dismissed

Sahab Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2019AB/1406/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by two Gram Panchayat officials accused of misappropriating public funds for aFoot Bridge project under MGNREGA. The Court held that due to the involvement of public money and allegations of diversion of funds, the case was not a fit case for pre-arrest bail. Concurrent interim bail was quashed and the ca

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application rejected; interim bail vacated; case diary returned.

Sahab Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010099742018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : AB 1406/2018

¶6

1:SAHAB UDDIN AND ANR.

¶7

S/O LATE AHMAL ALI, VILLAGE NAM DOBOKA GAON, P.O. HINDU BLOCK, P.S. DOBOKA, DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM.

¶8

2: ABDUL RAJAK S/O. LATE SIFAT ULLA VILLAGE PUB BOGURI P.O. JUNGLE BLOCK P.S. HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.

¶11

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

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 01-02-2019

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioners, namely, (1) Sahab Uddin and (2) Abdul Rajak , by this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in Hojai P.S. Case No. 281/2018 (corresponding to G.R. No. 967/2018) registered under Sections 409/420/34 IPC, wherein they are FIR named accused.

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

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

¶20

It is seen that in response to a public petition that huge money was misappropriated in implementing the scheme of “Construction of Foot Bridge over River Dimaru at Pub Bogori village” under MGNREGA Scheme, a magisterial enquiry was made, in which the two petitioners, President of Hindu Block Gram Panchayat and a Member of Ward No. 10 of the said Gram Panchayat, respectively and four others, Assistant Engineer of Jugijan Development Block, Block Development Officer of the said Block, GRS of Hindu Gram Panchayat and the concerned Contractor involved in carrying out the said scheme found to have been involved in malpractices in misappropriating the government money sanctioned for execution of the said scheme. On the basis of 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. 281/2018 has been registered against the petitioners and the two others.

¶21

It is seen that after obtaining interim bail on 30.05.2018, the petitioners appeared before the concerned I.O. of the case and their statements were recorded.

¶22

The I.O. has already seized the relevant records. From his note in the said case diary it is seen that the concerned I.O., during his investigating in the matter observed that the original name of the scheme is “Construction of Road from Dimaru Nalla to Aftab Ali House in Hindu Block Gram Panchayat” under Jugijan Development Block in the estimated cost of Rs. 40.10 Lakhs, for which the work started on 05.02.2013 and there is no such scheme by the name of “Construction of Foot Bridge over Pub Bogori village”. However, the officials stated that on demand of public, they have undertaken the construction of the said Foot Bridge. But the same has been found to be in violation of the provisions of MNREGA and the Rules framed under it and without proper and due approval of the authority concerned, and also in violation of the approved plan, where the petitioners without any authority and approval diverted the original scheme, for which a sum of Rs. 6,55,506/- of public money has already been spent. The concerned I.O. while visiting the site along with the officials and the local public found that no work has been done for the construction of the road as per the said scheme, though money was released for the said purpose under the approved scheme.

¶23

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. 281/2018 and accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners stands rejected.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

The interim bail granted to the petitioners earlier on 30.05.2018 in said Hojai P.S. Case No. 281/2018 stands vacated and hereby recalled.

¶26

Return the case diary.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Sahab Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahab Uddin and Anr. 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

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

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