The court denied anticipatory bail due to substantial evidence of embezzlement and forgery against the petitioner.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 18-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Karpi P.S. Case no. 58 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 379 , 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Usha Kumari, ANM, while posted at Additional Primary Health Centre, Kochhasa, Karpi, Arwal, had opened a joint account in the year 2009 in the name of National Rural Health and Sanitation Committee, bearing Account No. 710801100112636, in which she was the Secretary and one Sheela Devi was the President. It is alleged that without the knowledge, consent or signature of the informant, Ram Prasad (GNM), in connivance with the petitioner (then In-charge Medical Officer/CMO, Community Health Centre, Karpi, Arwal), fraudulently replaced the informant’s photograph and signatures in the bank records. The petitioner allegedly authenticated the forged signatures and certified the change of specimen signature before the Branch Manager. On the basis of such forged documents, a new cheque book was illegally issued, and an amount of Rs. 1,40,102/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the said account on 25.08.2023 by cheque (bearing No. 530821), by forging the informant’s signature. The fraud came to light only when the informant was transferred to another health centre and, during the process of handing over charge, discovered the unauthorized withdrawal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither any knowledge of nor any involvement in the alleged occurrence. The signature and photograph of the informant tally with those available in the account opening form. Learned counsel further submits that, as evident from Annexure P/12, all the signatories, including the informant herself, have categorically stated that the specimen signature furnished at the time of opening of the account was affixed by her.

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the informant has consistently signed documents in English, whereas the disputed signature appearing on the relevant records is in Hindi, which itself raises grave suspicion. It is further contended that a bare perusal of Letter No. 963 clearly reveals that the disputed signature does not match the admitted signature of the informant, even to the naked eye. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. From perusal of Impugned Order, it is specifically mentioned that vide para 71 prima facie, the involvement of petitioner appears. In the case diary, vide para 45, 50, 61, illegal transaction has been mentioned and vide para 71 of the case diary offence u/s 379, 409, 419, 420 of Indian Penal Code has been found true. There is specific allegation against the petitioner of embezzlement of Govt. money and vide para of the case diary shows that he has criminal antecedents of similar nature.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds that the allegations disclose a serious and well-orchestrated offence involving forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, committed by abusing official authority and siphoning public funds. The role attributed to the petitioner goes to the root of the fraudulent transaction, and prima facie materials indicate his active facilitation and authentication of forged documents, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)