Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 395 (PAT)

Nidhi Jha v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-25

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. The petitioner prays for bail in a case under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption. 3. The petitioner is involved in a Vigilance case commonly known as the Flood Relief Scam in which the main accused is one Santosh Kumar Jha and other 22 accused persons. The allegation against the main accused and his conspirators is of having defalcated a huge amount which was meant for Flood Relief causing wrongful loss to the State Exchequer and wrongful gain to themselves. So far as this petitioner is concerned, she is stated to be the wife/family friend of the main accused Santosh Kumar Jha and her name has figured only in the second supplementary charge-sheet which was submitted on 8.4.2006 against 9 accused persons including this petitioner, whereas the first charge-sheet was submitted on 24.8.2005 and the supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 17.11.2005. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 27.7.2004 an account was opened in the Canara Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna being Account No. 14319 in her name and in the said account initial cash deposited was of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a deposit of further Rs. 50,00,000/- on the same day and the total deposit made therein was Rs. 1,98,23,080/-. From the said account various withdrawals of huge amount were made from time to time, the last withdrawal having been made on 28.4.2005, i.e., 2 days after the formal FIR was lodged in this case on 26.4.2005 although the preliminary enquiry was ordered on 27.7.2004 itself, incidentally the same date on which the Account has been opened. It is alleged that this petitioner, who was then 19 years old girl studying in Patna Womens College, was an active co-conspirator of the main accused in the Food Relief Scam and from the amounts deposited in the said account which were the proceeds of the Flood Relief Scam, various purchases were made. It is alleged that this petitioner, who was then 19 years old girl studying in Patna Womens College, was an active co-conspirator of the main accused in the Food Relief Scam and from the amounts deposited in the said account which were the proceeds of the Flood Relief Scam, various purchases were made. In the name of the petitioner two flats had been purchased in a prime locality in Patna in the registered deed of which she has been mentioned as the wife of said Santosh Kumar Jha although it is admitted that said Santosh Kumar Jha was previously married and has a wife living. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a young and innocent college going girl and said Santosh Kumar Jha being a man of means and being a family friend she believed him and as per his instructions the Bank Account was opened and in the said account huge amounts were deposited. It is further submitted that it has come in the statement of said Santosh Kumar Jha himself that entire cheque book containing signatures was handed over by this petitioner to him and it was said Santosh Kumar Jha who was in fact operating the said Account. It is submitted that the petitioner had no idea that her account was being used for any illegal purpose and it cannot be expected of any immature girl of 19 years not knowing the ways of the world to know exactly what was happening with her Bank Account. Leaned counsel also points out that out of the nine charge-sheeted accused in the second supplementary charge-sheet including this petitioner, all the remaining eight have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submits that out of a total of 23 accused persons in this case all the remaining accused persons have been granted either anticipatory bail or bail by this Court including the main accused, Santosh Kumar Jha. 6. Considering all the aforesaid facts it is submitted by learned counsel that since there is no allegation against the petitioner that she herself had participated in the transactions relating to the Flood Relief Scam and the only allegation against her is of having allowed a Bank Account operating in her name which has been opened by the main accused, Santosh Kumar Jha, she ought to be granted bail. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that so far as the other eight charge- sheeted accused in the second supplementary charge-sheet is concerned their cases stand entirely on different footing as the charge against them is of having sold certain property or goods etc. to the accused persons and having received payments which had been made from the said Account. it is also submitted that the main accused Santosh Kumar Jha has been granted bail only after he remained in jail for more than one and half years and similarly with respect to other major accused persons. Learned counsel also refers to the fact that the Bank Account has also been used in the purchase of two flats in the name of this petitioner but it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner from the charge sheet that so far as the purchase of two flats are concerned, the amount has been paid out of the amounts deposited in another Account of main accused Santosh Kumar Jha and not from the Bank Account opened in the name of the petitioner. Leanred counsel for the Vigilance also refers to the statements made in the charge-sheet that several of the Bank employees have stated the fact that the petitioner was coming to the bank along with said Santosh Kumar Jha for operation of the said Account and thus she cannot be totally absolved in this regard. 8. On a consideration of theentire facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that all the remaining accused persons have been granted either anticipatory bail or bail by this Court including the main accused person and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a woman is entitled to be given the benefit of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further considering that she was only 19 years old at the time when the Bank Account was opened in her name in which the proceeds of the scam are alleged to have been deposited, it is directed that the petitioner, Nidhi Jha, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in Special Case No. 11/ 2005 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 08/2005 to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna.