JAGANNATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the C.B.I. as also learned counsel for the State. It may be mentioned that Mr. P.K. Shahi, submitted, that the petitioners, who had filed Public Interest Litigation case has engaged him to appeal in this case, so he should be heard and a Vakalatnama has also been filed. But I do not think that those petitioners, who had filed, public interest litigation, has have any locus to have any say in the bail matter.

(2.) The first information report of this case, which is R.C. 20 (A)/96-pat, indicates that this F.I.R. was drawn up after a team had made enquiry into the matter as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, Shri Amit Sharma. From a perusal of the formal part of the F.I.R., it appears that the time of occurrence is during the year 1994-95. Broadly indicates huge amount of withdrawal from Chaibasa and it contains the names of 52 persons including some firms and company, which were suppliers besides, some officers of Animal Husbandry Department and its treasury. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., even though it was lodged at least after some preliminary investigation done by a team led by an Officer of Commercial Tax Department. In the F.I.R. nothing has been said against the petitioner. It is, however, said that during the investigation certain facts/circumstances had transpired against the petitioner, which according to the C.B.I., would indicate that the petitioner was in conspiracy with at least some persons, who were involved in the fraudulent withdrawal of huge amount of money from the treasury on the basis of forged, fabricated or fake bills or sanction orders.

(3.) The facts and circumstances alleged against the petitioner appear to be indicated in the observations of the learned Special Judge about the stand taken before him by the counsel for the C.B.I., who is the Investigating Agency of this case. The observations are as follows: