Public servants are held to higher standards of trust; misappropriation of funds invokes strict legal consequences under Section 409 IPC, emphasizing accountability and integrity.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I.A. No. 1324 of 2025

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 25.11.2024 passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No.23 of 2024 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2023 passed by Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 1445 of 2011 corresponding to Kotwali P.S. Case No. 242 of 2011, by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 409 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years and to pay the fine of rupees one crore and in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made scapegoat in the present case as the sole accused and work done by the petitioner was not properly verified. It is submitted that the petitioner was earlier in judicial custody from 03.05.2011 and by order dated 17.04.2015, he was granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 1186 of 2015. However, the petitioner has furnished bail bonds on 12.08.2015 and as such, he had remained in custody for more than four years and three months at that time. It is also submitted that after conviction by the Trial Court in the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2023 and thus, he has remained in custody for about six years. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has caused loss to the Government Exchequer to the tune of rupees one crore and above and he has not deposited the amount in question. It is also submitted that the petitioner being a public servant was required to do the work honestly, but he failed to do so and as such, his prayer for bail may be rejected.

6. Perused the Lower Court Records and heard the learned counsel for both parties.

7. It appears from the record that FIR was lodged for misappropriation of Rs. 1.76 crores against the petitioner, but from perusal of paragraph-26 of the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court, it appears that that the petitioner had returned Rs. 18,53,000/- as no work was done in Banta sub centre.

8. It also appears that a report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti for recovery of Rs. 96,12,400/- from the petitioner and for which, a certificate case was also instituted.

9. It also appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for about six years.

10. Considering the custody of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner, namely, Ram Binod Prasad Sinha, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of this criminal revision, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi