Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 30 (JHR)

LALU PRASAD ALIAS, LALU PRASAD YADAV v. STATE

2002-01-10

D.N.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the applications, namely, B. A. No. 10206 of 2001 and B. A. No. 2 of 2002 have been heard together as they are arisen out of the RC 68 (A) of 1996 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (a) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case as alleged is that the Patna High Court while disposing off the writ petitions being C. W. J. C. Nos. 1617 of 1996, 1642 of 1996, 1644 of 1996, 1656 of 1996, 456 of 1996 (R), 602 of 1996 (R),675 of 1996 (R),and 687 of 1996 (R), directed the Central Bureau of Investigation vide order dated 11. 3. 1996. . . . . . . "to enquire and scrutinise all cases of excess withdrawal and expenditure into the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Bihar during the periods 1977-78 to 1995-96. " On the basis of the said order, the Central Bureau of Investigation took up the scrutiny of documents received from the District Treasury Office, Chaibasa and the Regional Director, South Chotanagpur Range, A. H. D. , Ranchi, for the financial year 1992-93. It was found that during the period under scrutiny and investigation the accused persons including the petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy and, in pursuance of which, an amount of Rs. 37,62,79, 833. 00 was fraudulently withdrawn from the District Treasury, Chaibasa by presenting false bills causing wrongful loss of the aforesaid amount and have been misappropriated the said amount, as a result of which, a huge Government exchequer defalcated. It is also alleged that one Dr. Pandey, C. P. Sharma, the then Drawing and Disbursing officer during the financial year 1992-93 had passed the bills on the basis of false receipts provided by the subordinate officials in favour of the Suppliers-Firms and misappropriated the said huge amount to the Government exchequer. After completing investigation and finding a prima facie case, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioners. After completing investigation and finding a prima facie case, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioners. ( 3 ) TWO counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the C. B. I. claiming therein that the petitioners conspired with co-accused persons and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy scuttled the enquiry/investigation on the false pretext of the PAC enquiry. It is also alleged that the cases are different from each other with respect to the amount, place and the period of occurrence and after the prima facie case, charge-sheet was also submitted in this case. It is further alleged that the petitioner though got registered several cases but did not register the subject case with the sole intention to save the skin as fraudulent withdrawal of the subject case was deliberated upon a meeting chaired by him and attended by the other co-accused persons at Patna on 7-6-1993. Investigation also revealed that the PAC purportedly seized all relevant records for inquiry to pre-empt any enquiry/investigation into the allegations and the petitioner (Laloo Prasad Yadav) is in judicial custody in this case from 20-12-2001. Rejoinder to the counter-affidavits has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was granted interim bail in RC No. 63 (A)/96 by the Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 100 of 2001. ( 4 ) MR. P. N. Pandey, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (Laloo Prasad Yadav) submitted at the very outset that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is nothing specific against him for the charge of conspiracy. It is further argued that the petitioner has been made an accused in so many cases of the Fodder Scam but the allegation of conspiracy in all the cases are same and similar in nature. It was further argued that the petitioner has been granted bail in RC Nos. 47 (A) of 1006,20 (A) of 1996, 64 (A) of 1996, 38 (A) of 1996 and 63 (A) of 1996 as well as RC No. 68 (A) of 1996 and RC No. 20 (A) of 1996 are the cases of Chaibasa Treasury for the different period of almost identical amounts. 47 (A) of 1006,20 (A) of 1996, 64 (A) of 1996, 38 (A) of 1996 and 63 (A) of 1996 as well as RC No. 68 (A) of 1996 and RC No. 20 (A) of 1996 are the cases of Chaibasa Treasury for the different period of almost identical amounts. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has already been in custody for more than nine months and it has been observed by the Apex Court in the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2001 arising out of S. L. P. (Cri) No. 7012 of 2001 that the petitioners were already in jail for more than six months in connection with the cases arising out of the Bihar Fodder Scam and the Court did not reject the bail application in respect of any one of the accused arraigned in the series of cases who had remanded in Jail for six months and above merely on the ground that another offshoot case of the main conspiracy has since been registered or even charge-sheeted against him. It is also argued that the approach/intention of the CBI/prosecution is not proper and fair because as soon as the petitioners were granted bail in one case immediately thereafter the charge-sheet has been filed in another case with a view to detain the petitioners in custody. ( 5 ) MR. T. K. Jha, senior counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Jagannath Mishra submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and there is nothing against the petitioenr to establish the conspiracy. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail in four cases and in all the cases, the allegation of conspiracy as alleged by the CBI is only in respect of a letter dated 15-11-1990 addressed to the then Chief Minister Sri Laloo Prasad Yadav for contemplation that enquiry be entrusted to the Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi as the enquiry made by the Police would cause harassment and demoralisation of the AHD Officials. It is further submitted that one more letter was used by the CBI which is dated 23-8-1990 written by the petitioner (Dr. Jagannath Mishra) as well as the petitioner has already been in custody for about six months and, therefore, he should be released on bail in this case also. Mr. It is further submitted that one more letter was used by the CBI which is dated 23-8-1990 written by the petitioner (Dr. Jagannath Mishra) as well as the petitioner has already been in custody for about six months and, therefore, he should be released on bail in this case also. Mr. Jha also drew my attention to the order passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1290 of 2001 arising out of S. L. P. (Cri ). No. 7079 of 2001 and submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody for a period of more than six months by now which includes the pre-trial detention and, as such, the petitioner may be granted bail as there is no cogent evidence coming forward to establish about the conspiracy against the petitioner except two letters dated 23-8-1990 and 15-11-1990. ( 6 ) ON the other hand Mr. P. P. N. Roy, the learned counsel for the C. B. I. contended before me that the petitioner (Laloo Prasad Yadav) has actually been in jail custody in this case since 20-12-2001. It is further submitted that after finding prima facie case against the petitioners about the conspiracy, charge-sheet was submitted in this case and the petitioners conspired with co-accused persons and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, scuttled the enquiry/investigation. It was also argued that the petitioners were in know of withdrawal of crores of rupees from the Treasury and inspite of knowing everything allowed the accused persons/government Officials for withdrawal of the huge amount. It is further argued that the petitioners themselves continued to be indulged and connived with the accused persons in drawing money from the Treasury resulting in loss of several crores of rupees. It is further argued that the allegation about conspiracy against both the petitioners are not the same and identical as the allegations in all the cases are different as in this case, the amount said to have been withdrawn by producing fake bills from Chaibasa Treasury in a different period of time under the conspiracy of the petitioners and several accused persons have not been granted bail by the Apex Court even though the total period of custody is more than six months which will be evident from the Chart, Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. ( 7 ) APPARENTLY a huge amount (Rs. ( 7 ) APPARENTLY a huge amount (Rs. 37,62,79,883/-) was fraudulently withdrawn from the District Treasury at Chaibasa by presenting false bills even though there was no allotment from the Department of Finance and Animal Husbandry Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna, and the said huge amount was withdrawn and misappropriated under a deep conspiracy as some of the tainted officials of the Animal Husbandry Department (AHD) who were directly involved and indulged in such type of defalcation were given protection and latitude by way of extension in the service. ( 8 ) THE allegations are very serious in nature in relation to fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation of huge Government money and, as such, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners bail and, accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. Application rejected. --- *** --- .