Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 164 (CHH)

Michael Francis v. State of C. G.

2010-06-17

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2010
ORDER Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Heard. 2. Applicant-Michael Francis is a retired Chief Engineer from the Water Resources Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 1999, he was sent on deputation as Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Department and was posted in Dantewada Division. He remained on deputation till 30.4.2005. During his tenure, construction works of 6 ponds were sanctioned by the Government. These ponds are Dugoli Pond, Nukaipal Pond, Avapalli Pond, Murkinar Pond. Mingachal Pond and Murdanda Pond. Though the works of construction of ponds begun in the regime of Applicant-Michael Francis, but it was not completed and ultimately after repatriation to the parent department, he retired. Later on, some measurement was done in the year 2008 and it was allegedly assessed that excess payments were made for the work done during the tenure of Mr. Michael Francis, as the work in proportion to the payments were not done. The total loss, in the said manner, assess was in sum of Rs. 51,52,676/-. 3. Since there were 6 ponds in question, therefore above 6 crime numbers were registered against Applicant-Michael Francis and other co-accused persons under the aforementioned Sections of IPC in the above police stations. 4. Michael Francis filed 6 applications Under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court for grant of anticipator)' bail in the above crime numbers, which were allowed by a common order dated 20.4.2010 and it was directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as an when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; & (iii) he shall cooperate with the investigation as and when he is called. 5. 5. The High Court further directed that the aforesaid orders of anticipatory bail shall remain in force till filing of the charge-sheet and during this period, the Applicant shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail before the trial Court. 6. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant-Michael Francis, submits that thereafter the Applicant filed 6 regular bail applications before the concerned Sessions Court which were rejected. Therefore, these applications Under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure are filed before the High Court. He further submits that on the basis of material available in the case diary till 20.4.2010, the High Court thought it better to admit the Applicant to anticipatory bail in above 6 crime numbers, thereafter, no incriminating material was collected by the prosecution agency and nothing more than the material earlier collected was available before the Sessions Court, even then the learned Sessions Judge did not allow the applications filed Under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure Mr. Tripathi also submits that the allegations are based on the technical measurement made in the year 2008. He submits that the construction of the ponds was an earth work which was admittedly done in the year 2004-2005 and 3-4 rainy seasons had gone after the construction which may have brought vital changes, therefore, any measurement taken in the year 2008 in the said ponds cannot be correct measurement for assessing the work done in the ponds in the year 2004-2005 i.e. 3-4 years prior to the subsequent measurement. He prays for releasing Applicant-Michael Francis on regular bail who is still under the protective umbrella, opened by this Court vide order dated 20.4.2010 as it is stated at bar (by counsel for both the sides) that the charge-sheet has not been filed till date. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the bail applications. However, he also could not point out any incriminating evidence collected after 20.4.2010 i.e. after grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court. 8. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the bail applications. However, he also could not point out any incriminating evidence collected after 20.4.2010 i.e. after grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the circumstance that the offences have been registered on the basis of re-assessments made in the year 2008 for the construction which had taken place in the year 2004-2005 and further that the Applicant was admitted to anticipatory bail and no incriminating material was collected after passing earlier order of this Court, I am of the opinion that present are the fit cases, in which, Applicant-Michael Francis should be enlarged on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, bail applications of Michael Francis filed Under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. M.Cr.C. No. 1236/2010; 1237/2010; 1235/2010; 1234/2010; 1233/2010 & 1232/2010 are allowed and it is directed that Applicant- Michael Francis shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- in each case with one surety in the like sum in each case, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the said Court on each date of hearing till the disposal of the trials. 10. Since Applicant- Michael Francis is enjoying the protective umbrella opened by this Court, therefore, it is directed that he will surrender before the trial Court within 15 days from today and shall furnish the bail bonds as aforementioned, thereafter he shall be immediately released on regular bail. 11. M.Cr.C. (A) No. 329/2010 is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to M.R. Netam. He was working as a Sub-Engineer in Rural Engineering Services at that time. He also faced similar allegations as are leveled against Applicant- Michael Francis. 12. So far as merits of the case is concerned, Mr. B.R Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant- M.R. Netam, raises similar arguments which have been advanced by Mr. Awadh Tripathi. He was working as a Sub-Engineer in Rural Engineering Services at that time. He also faced similar allegations as are leveled against Applicant- Michael Francis. 12. So far as merits of the case is concerned, Mr. B.R Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant- M.R. Netam, raises similar arguments which have been advanced by Mr. Awadh Tripathi. Since no specific allegations have been made against Applicant- M.R. Netam and the allegations are general against all the accused persons who were employees of the Government and the case of Applicant-M.R. Netam would hardly be differentiable from the case of Michael Francis with only difference that one was Executive Engineer and other was Sub-Engineer, I am of the opinion that Applicant-M.R. Netam also deserves to be released on anticipatory bail. 13. His application i.e. M.Cr.C. (A) No. 329/2010 filed Under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is also allowed. 14. It is directed that in the event of arrest of Applicant-M.R. Netam, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Officer arresting him. 15. This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days from today, during which the Applicant may apply for regular bail before the concerned Court. 16. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as an when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; & (iii) he shall cooperate with the investigation as and when he is called. Certified copy as per rules.