ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kundhit P.S. Case No. 32 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 411 of 2015 for the offence under Sec. 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 3 of Jharkhand Protection of Interest of Depositor Financial Establishment Act pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Jamtara.

(2.) The case of prosecution, in short, is that the instant case has been lodged on the basis of written report 14/4/2015 of Informant- Rajeev Kumar Rai, Divisional Forest Officer addressed to the Officer-in- Charge, Kundahit Police Station annexing letters of the Office of the Forest Conservator, Deoghar and annexing audit report of the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Ranchi, Jharkhand, alleging inter- alia the petitioner was the then Range Forest Officer and it was found during course of test check of relevant records relating to implementation of different schemes under CAMPA for the year, 2011-12 that forest advance of Rs.30,41,511.00 was given to the Range Officers of Forest, Jamtara Range for implementation of the schemes under CAMPA on 10/12/2010 but the account of forest advance for the same was not submitted by the Range Officer of Forest, Jamtara till the date of audit and non submission of accounts of advances made to the Range Officer of Forest amounting to Rs.30.42 lakh even after lapse of four years was quite irregular involving threat of embezzlement. It is further alleged that the amount of advance was neither adjusted nor recovered from the erring official. Further, it has been alleged that in course of test-check of relevant records ie. Progress report, correspondence file etc under MANREGA for the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11 it came to notice that account against forest advance of Rs.19.66 lakh was not submitted by the concerned Range Officers of Forest, even after lapse of considerable time since 2008- 09. Further the competition of the schemes and execution of the works by the concerned officials was also doubtful under the circumstances, it was also observed that subsequent advance were granted by the division without obtaining adjustment vouchers from ROF for previous advance which was in contravention of the rule. The non-submission of accounts of advance made to the ROFs amounting to Rs.19.66 lakh even after lapse of two years was quite irregular involving threat of embezzlement. The amount of advance was neither adjusted nor recovered from the erring official till date. Thus total government money of Rs.50,07,511.00 was misappropriated by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner had moved before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) NO. 281 of 2015 which was dismissed vide order dtd. 12/4/2016 and the petitioner has also moved this Hon'ble Court for grant of anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No. 1888 of 2016 which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dtd. 22/8/2016, thereafter the petitioner has moved this Court vide Cr.M.P. NO. 1234 of 2016 challenging the order dtd. 13/5/2016 by which process of 82 Cr.P.C has been issued, which was quashed by this Court under order dtd. 13/6/2017 thereafter this anticipatory bail application has been filed.