The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, and the legal submissions made by the applicant's counsel.

1. An urgency slip was filed by the counsel for the applicant and therefore, the matter has been listed today.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 282 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 1184 of 2010 registered under Sections 406/409/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as a Block Development Officer, Mohanpur and he was also acting as the Programme Officer under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. Vide letter no. 1902 dated 14.08.2010, the applicant was directed to lodge a First Information Report and in pursuance thereof he submitted a written report dated 17.09.2010, on the basis of which, Mohanpur P.S. Case No.238 of 2010 dated 18.09.2010 was registered for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against nine persons for the alleged irregularity in execution of Scheme under “Ghongha Panchayat” under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The second case being, Mohanpur P.S. Case No.282 of 2010 dated 23.11.2010 was registered on the written report of one Ram Narayan Ram, S.D.O., Deoghar pursuant to direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against eight persons for the alleged irregularity in execution of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, in which the applicant has also been made an accused. It is thus submitted that for the same cause of action and on identical facts a second First Information Report could not have been registered. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the First Information Report in the present case would indicate that the S.D.O., Deoghar had lodged this First Information Report in ignorance of the fact that earlier also a case being, Mohanpur P.S. Case No.238 dated 18.09.2010 was already lodged. It is submitted that even though the applicant was the informant in Mohanpur P.S. Case No.238 of 2010, if during the course of investigation his complicity in the crime is detected, he could be made an accused and therefore, the lodging of second First Information Report was not warranted. On merits, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 is a complete code in itself and there is a provision under Section 28 of the Act which gives overriding effect. Section 30 of the Act protects the action taken in good faith and Section 25 provides penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that under the Scheme, the social audit is carried out by the Gram Sabha and the money is deposited in the Post Office through cheques signed by the Panchayat Sevak, Block Programme Officer and the Programme Officer (applicant). Thereafter, the money is transferred to the account of the beneficiaries. The allegation made in the First Information Report that the amount was withdrawn by the middlemen cannot be connected with any action taken by the applicant. It is further submitted that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant however, a punishment of stoppage of three increments only has been awarded and the appeal preferred by the applicant is pending. In these facts, it is submitted that the department itself has acknowledged that there was no criminality on the part of the applicant in supervising of the execution of the Scheme.

5. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and referred to various paragraphs of the First Information Report. It is submitted that on spot verification, it was found that the work which has been shown to have been carried out was not actually