Order on Board

17.10.2023

1. The instant is the first application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. He is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 151/2020 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section

420/34 of IPC.

2. According to the case of prosecution, between the year of 2011 to 2015, the applicant who was working on the post of Daily Wager Assistant alongwith co-accused persons namely Prahlad Jaiswal who was the Sarpanch and Mulchand was the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat. Total 26 units of work was done under the scheme of MNREGA on 06.03.2020. C.E.O of Janpad Panchayat made a report alleging therein that, out of 26 units of work, there were some irregularity in 08 units due to which there was a loss of Rs.57,26,884/-. On the basis of said, offence has been registered against the present applicant and other accussed persons.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that incident occurred between the year 2011 to 2015 and the report is lodged against the present applicant and other accused persons after 08 years of incident in the year 2020. He also submits that as per MNREGA report, all the work have been duly completed therefore, no case is made out against the present applicant, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. He would also submit that the co- accused persons namely Prahlad Jaiswal and Mulchand have already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 24.06.2020 passed in MCRCA No. 553/2020.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that there was delay of 08 years in lodging the FIR, further considering that the co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate bench of this Court, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the present applicant.

7. Accordingly, Accordingly, the application is allowed.

8. It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:-

i. He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court or Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

ii. He shall not act in any manner that will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and iii. He shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

iv. He shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature in the future.

9. The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any of the observations made hereinabove.