2022 (4) TMI 1581 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - misappropriation of fund - HELD THAT - On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT , the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant Pramod Kumar Singh, be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail application under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 471 IPC & Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis:
The applicant, a Technical In-charge for MGNREGA work, filed an anticipatory bail application in a case involving misappropriation of funds. The applicant, along with two others, was accused of misappropriating Rs.5,913. The Technical Examiner recommended recovery of Rs.1971 from each accused due to poor quality workmanship. The charge sheet was filed in 2020, and the applicant cooperated in the investigation and trial. The applicant assured he would not misuse liberty if granted anticipatory bail.

The CBI vehemently opposed the bail, alleging the applicant, responsible for technical supervision, made non-viable entries in the Measurement Book (MB). The CBI argued that the applicant, abusing his position as a public servant, caused wrongful loss to the State Exchequer. The CBI contended that the applicant colluded with others to commit the offense. The CBI pointed out that a co-accused had been granted interim protection by another Bench of the Court.

After considering the arguments and following legal precedents, including the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court ordered the release of the accused-applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with conditions. These conditions included making the applicant available for interrogation, refraining from tampering with evidence, not leaving India without court permission, and not pressurizing or intimidating prosecution witnesses. The Court warned that any breach of these conditions could lead to the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court clarified that its observations in granting bail would not influence the trial judge's independent opinion based on witness testimony.