Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 388 (HP)

Nand Lal Sharma v. State of H. P.

2014-04-11

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by Nand Lal Sharma, presently working as Assistant Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Baldwara, District Mandi, H.P., who is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.18 of 2013, dated 2.2.2013, registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station, Barmana, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. It appears that a written complaint was sent by the Block Development Officer, Bilaspur to the In-charge, Police Station, Barmana regarding certain irregularities in the utilization of funds of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (for short `MNREGA’). According to this report, there were some awards passed by the Ombudsman in which complicity of the accused had been established regarding the mis-utilization and misuse of the funds of the `MNREGA’. 3. It is the case set out in the complaint that against a total sanctioned amount of Rs.7,16,100/-, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was found to have not been utilized at all and had thus been appropriated by the petitioner along with Shyam Lal, the then Pradhan and Sada Ram, the then Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that as many as five paths were sanctioned under `MNREGA’ and as per the detail given below, apart from the path at serial No.5, in all cases, the amounts had been mis-utilized, misused or even appropriated as per the details given below:- Sr. No. Name of path Sanctioned amount (In Rs.) Amount spent (In Rs.) Deficient amount (In Rs.) 1. Khandoj to Cheel Ghat 1,37,000/- 99,946/- 37,000/- 2. Khandoj to Solag 1,20,700/- 78,124/- 42,500/- 3. Khandoj to Slapper (Part-I Jamthal) 1,65,500/- 1,12,433/- 53,000/- 4. Khandoj to Jamthal (Baryee to Slapper Part2) 1,42,500/- 57,764/- 85,000/- 5. Jamthal to Kupao (whole of the amount utilized) 5. Shri Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that it is the petitioner who is the main accused in the present case, though the other two co-accused had already been ordered to be released by this Court vide order dated 7.3.2014 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.212 of 2014, 6. I have gone through the record of the case and find that the complicity of the accused in the present case is no different in Cr.M.P.(M) No.212 of 2014. I have gone through the record of the case and find that the complicity of the accused in the present case is no different in Cr.M.P.(M) No.212 of 2014. Therefore, taking into consideration the detailed order already passed by me on 7.3.2014 and looking into the allegations set out in the petition, I find that this is a fit case where bail ought to be granted to the petitioner. 7. As such, the petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur. It is clarified that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, will not tamper with the prosecution evidence, will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; he shall make himself available during trial. Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide letter No.HHC.VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV-7139, dated 18.3.2013. 8. Lastly it is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not be taken into account during the course of the trial or at any stage subsequent thereto for any purpose whatsoever. The trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.