Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a cheating and corruption case alleging misappropriation of government funds. Court rejected prayer citing serious allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation for recovery of funds.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 16 of 2020
Vijay Shankar Singh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.05 Dated- 03.02.2020
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Sursang P.S. Case No.01 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.120 of 2016 instituted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he in connivance with the co-accused persons has prepared false report regarding construction of road and misappropriated huge amount of government money. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are false and the petitioner was the Project Manager whose duty is only to certify the work. It is then submitted that the petitioner is not empowered for making payment and the Zonal Manager of N.P.C.C. is empowered to make payment for the work. It is further submitted that the co-accused Jaganath Sahu has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail upon his agreeing to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- with the N.P.C.C. but the petitioner is not ready and willing to deposit any money with the N.P.C.C. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there
is specific allegation against the petitioner that he in connivance with the co-accused persons has misappropriated huge amount of government money by preparing false report and upon his recommendation only, such a huge amount of government money has been paid. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential during the investigation of the case for recovery of the huge amount of government money. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of misappropriating huge amount of government money and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the huge amount of government money misappropriated by him, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a cheating and corruption case involving misappropriation of government funds?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Shankar Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
