KASHINATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for bail has been filed by Kashinath Singh, who is an accused in R.C. case No. 25 (A)/96 - Patna under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE case was initially registered as Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 80 of 1996 but subsequently in compliance with the directions of this High Court and the Supreme Court of India the investigation was taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) alongwith the other cases pertaining to fraudulent withdrawal of huge amounts from the Government treasury by the officials of the Animal Husbandry Department, in common parlance known as Animal Husbandry Scam. The present case relates to the financial year 1992 -93. It appears that an enquiry committee was formed and it was found that a sum of Rs.24 lacs was defalcated on the basis of forged documents. The petitioner withdrew the said amount on the basis of forged allotment letters and has shown that the amount has been paid to various suppliers of the Department. It was found that none of the bills of the suppliers disclosed the mode of supply and the transportation of those materials and in fact no supply was ever made against which the bills were passed. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Regional Director in the Animal Husbandry Department, Hazaribagh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that another case bearing Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 35(2) 96 (now R.C. Case No. 28(A)/96) was registered and the petitioner was remanded to custody in the said case on 3.2.1996 and as the investigation of all the cases now stand entrusted to the C.B.I., the petitioner be deemed to have been in custody in this case as well since 3.2.1996 and as such, he is entitled to release on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) as the charge sheet has not been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. It is further submitted that a copy of the allotment letter on the strength of which the amounts were withdrawn was also sent to the treasury and the bills were passed by the treasury after verifying the allotment letters and as such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. As regards the payment to the suppliers, it is contended that the payments have been made on the basis of bills of the various suppliers and the receipts issued by Dr. K.K. Sahay, the Assistant Disease Investigation and Research Officer cum Store Keaper and as such, if the receipts were false the liability is that of the aforesaid officer and not of the petitioner who simply passed the bills.