ORDER

1. Heard.

2. Perused the case diary.

3. This is the first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who has been arrested on 3.2.2022 by Police Station Economic Offence Wing, District Bhopal in connection with Crime No. 4/2022 registered for offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of IPC and sections 7,13(1) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the applicant that he is suffering confinement since 3.2.2022 and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, chance of tampering with evidence / witness is remote. It is further submitted that applicant is facing false implication. As per the allegations, as Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Sironj, applicant misused his official position and embezzled an amount of Rs. 30,68,37,000/-(Rs. Thirty Crores Sixty Eight Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand) on pretext of 6021 marriages allegedly conducted by members of unorganized labour class under Vivah Sahayata Yojna, a scheme promulgated by State government through Karmkar Kalyan Mandal (Workers Welfare Board) in which every member of unorganized labour between age group of 18 to 60 if undergoes marriage then financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 51,000/- is given after due verification. According to learned senior counsel for the applicant, only 18 families were pointed out to be beneficiaries and not a single penny has been transferred in the account of applicant. Earlier some departmental enquiries were made but no finger was pointed out over role of applicant. In fact he was instrumental in plugging the gap, if any, by asking for affidavit of bride and bridegroom side to maintain transparency. He relied upon decision of apex court in the matter of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. And Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 260, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 581 and P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337 in support of his submissions. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in trial. On these grounds, prayer for bail is made out.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that detailed charge-sheet indicates the role of applicant; wherein, applicant has given benefits of 18,52, 32,000/- during COVID period April, 2020 to May, 2021 and in total more than 6,000 beneficiaries alleged to have been benefited by the act of applicant but on close scrutiny it was found that some people received the benefit; wherein, no children were eligible to be married. Some beneficiaries were not family of construction workers and in some of the cases, beneficiaries did not have any knowledge about the benefits given to them. Around 529 persons were those construction workers whose registrations were not made in Registration Portal and still got the benefit. Looking to the serious natures of allegations and the fact that applicant may tamper with evidence / witness and looking to the amount embezzled by applicant, no case for bail is made out. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

6. Heard and case diary perused.

7. This is a case; where, applicant is facing charge for offence under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of IPC and sections 7,13(1) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. A bulky Charge-sheet consisting of more than 80 pages devoted on narrating the allegations only is being filed against the applicant in which allegation of embezzlement of more than rupees Thirty Crores is levelled. Perusal of contents of FIR / narration in charge-sheet indicates that applicant facilitated marriage of more than 6,000 persons in families of construction workers during the period April 2020 to May, 2021