High Court granted anticipatory bail to two Accredited Engineers accused of MGNREGA irregularities. Court held custodial interrogation not warranted as they only measured work and did not execute schemes. Bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each directed.
Grant of anticipatory bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010035402022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/577/2022
PRITAM ROY AND ANR
S/O PRANAB BHUSHAN ROY, R/O DOORDARSHAN STAFF QTR. TARAPUR, SILCHAR, CACHAR, PIN-788003, ASSAM
2: DEBADATTA DAS S/O RATHINDRA KUMAR DAS R/O ITKHOLA F AND D ROAD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR ORDER
Date : 17.05.2022
Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
This third petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed for granting the
Page No.# 2/3
privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, namely i) Pritam Roy and ii) Debadatta Das apprehending arrest in connection with Katigorah P.S. Case No. 562/2021 registered u/s 420/406/409 of the IPC (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3784/2021 ).
The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.
The FIR lodged by the C.E.O., Cachar Zilla Parishad, reveals the allegation that as per Govt. instruction, an Enquiry Team was constituted from Cachar Zilla Parishad for inspection and enquiry of execution of schemes under MGNREGA at Katigorah Development Block. Accordingly, the enquiry team physically inspected seven numbers of schemes under MGNREGA in Tarinipur GP (4 Nos.), Fulbari GP (2 Nos.) and Dudpur gonirgram GP (1 Nos.). As per report of the Enquiry Team, in the above GPs huge difference was found between the expenditure made and physical progress in the field, thereby indicating gross irregularities and misappropriation of Govt. fund. It was found that there was lack of supervision by the Programme Officer (BDO) towards disbursing of fund under MGNREGA. Moreover, the relevant records were also not provided to the Enquiry Team by the responsible Block officials during the course of enquiry and gross negligence and irregularities were found on the part of the Accredited Engineer and Gram Rozgar Sahayak of the concerned GPs who were responsible for field verification, MR generation, proper execution of work etc.
On scrutiny of the updated case diary, it is revealed that the petitioners have participated in the investigation into the case by appearing before the investigating officer and getting their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is noticed that during the financial year 2021-2022 they worked as Accredited Engineers under the Block Development Office at Katigorah. Both of them were engaged as Accredited Engineers on contract basis and they were
Page No.# 3/3
entrusted with measurement of the works executed under the MGNREGA schemes during the aforesaid financial period. They were, prima facie, not responsible for engaging any person and mode of execution of the works under the aforesaid scheme guidelines, but with the measurement of the works done only, subject, however, to final outcome in investigation.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in the interest of investigation, where they have already participated, is not warranted.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, each of the petitioners, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating officer as and when required; and
Return the case diary.
This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to petitioners apprehending arrest in a corruption case related to MGNREGA scheme irregularities.
Whether custodial interrogation of petitioners who already participated in investigation is warranted.
Whether petitioners as Accredited Engineers were responsible for engaging persons for work execution under scheme guidelines.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PRITAM ROY AND ANR
STATE OF ASSAM
AJIT BORTHAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
