Kashinath Singh v. State of Bihar — 1996 DIGILAW 563 (PAT)

Order 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 It is further submitted that a copy of the allotment letter on the strength of which the amounts were withdrawn was also sent to the treasury and the bills were passed by the treasury after verifying the allotment letters and as such, the petitioner cannot be held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. It is further submitted that a copy of the allotment letter on the strength of which the amounts were withdrawn was also sent to the treasury and the bills were passed by the treasury after verifying the allotment letters and as such, the petitioner cannot be held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. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner in the present case was remanded to custody only on 10.6.1996 and as such, in this case he is in custody from that date only and is not entitled to bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i), Cr. P.C. as the period of 90 days has (sic- not?) yet elapsed. It is further contended that the allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused are that they hatched a criminal conspiracy in which the petitioner played a vital role of withdrawing the amounts from Government treasury as he was the drawing and disbursing Officer. 5. I find that all the cases relating to Animal Husbandry Scam were initially being investigated by the State police, the High Court vide its order dated 11.6.1996 suspended the investigation being done by the State police and entrusted the same to the C.B.I. The petitioner was taken into custody by the State police not in this case but in Hazaribagh' Sadar P.S. Case No. 35/96 (now R.C. Case No. 28(A)/96). The Apex Court while entrusting the investigation of all the cases relating to Animal Husbandry Department directed the C.B.I. to take over the investigation already made by the police inclusive of the F.I.Rs., Arrests, attachment made in those cases. The Apex Court while entrusting the investigation of all the cases relating to Animal Husbandry Department directed the C.B.I. to take over the investigation already made by the police inclusive of the F.I.Rs., Arrests, attachment made in those cases. Thus, the arrest of the petitioner made by the police in the other recorded case bearing Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 35/96 (now R.C. Case No. 28 (A)/96) as per directions of the Court was taken over by the C.B.I. Since the State Police never arrested the petitioner in the present case i.e. Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 80/96 (R.C. Case No. 25 (A)/96), the C.B.I. cannot be deemed to have arrested the petitioner in the said case. Both these cases were being investigated separately. In the case under consideration, the C.B.I. after taking over the investigation already made by the police obtained remand of the petitioner for the first time on 10.6.1996 and he cannot be deemed to have been arrested in this case prior to the said date. While reckoning the statutory period of 60/90 days, as the case may be, as provided in Section 167 Cr. P.C. the period starts running on and from the date when the remand of an accused is taken in that particular case and not from any prior date on which the accused was remanded in some other case. In this view of the matter, the period of 90 days from the date of the arrest of the petitioner in the case in hand has not yet elapsed to earn a statutory release on bail for the petitioner under Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr. P.C. 6. As regards the merits of the case for the purpose of bail, the petitioner was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the materials collected so far indicate that the huge withdrawals were made on the strength of fake allotment letters and thereafter these amounts were shown to be disbursed to the various suppliers against fraudulent bills and receipts of various materials without having actually being received. In view of the magnitude of the scandal and the likeness of the modus-operandi of the fraudulent transactions throughout the State, there may be something more than what meets the eye but that cannot absolve the petitioner of his criminal liability for the alleged acts of commission and omission on his part. In view of the magnitude of the scandal and the likeness of the modus-operandi of the fraudulent transactions throughout the State, there may be something more than what meets the eye but that cannot absolve the petitioner of his criminal liability for the alleged acts of commission and omission on his part. The materials collected so far indicate a deep involvement of the petitioner in the criminal conspiracy with the other accused resulting in defalcation of huge public money to the tune of about Rs.24 lacs. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not only an offence against the State but it is an offence against the Nation and the very people. The investigation is not yet complete and is at a crucial stage of collection of evidence. 7. Having regard to all this, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail petition is, therefore, dismissed.