Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 132 (TRI)

Dronaram Reang v. State of Tripura

2021-08-20

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) for granting pre arrest bail to Dronaram Reang, a retired Forest Officer who is an FIR named accused in Kanchanpur P.S. case No. 2021 KCP 037 registered under Sections 409 IPC. [2] Factual background of the case is as under: Accused Dronaram Reang was posted as Forest Officer in different beat offices under Laxmi Pur forest range and Bhangmun Forest range under the erstwhile Kanchanpur Forest Division. During his tenure in the said forest division, in 2010-11 and 2012-13 a total sum of Rs.75,67,298/- was entrusted to him as Civil Advance(CA) under NAP Scheme of the State Government for development of 17 Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs). Allegation against the accused is that out of the said sum of 75,67,298/-, he actually utilized a sum of Rs.54,14,407/- for which he submitted Utilization Certificate (UC). Rest of the amount i.e. Rs.21,52,891/- was allegedly misappropriated by him. He could not submit any adjustment report or Utilization Certificate for the said amount. [3] Having made these allegations, Suman Das, Subdivisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur, North Tripura lodged a written FIR with the Officer in charge of Kanchanpur P.S. on 01/08/21which was registered as 2021 KCP/037 under Section 409 IPC and investigation of the case was taken up by police. Apprehending arrest in the case, the accused has approached this court by means of filing this application for granting anticipatory bail to him. [4] Heard Mr.T.D.Majumder, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner along with Mr.T.Halam, learned advocate. Also heard Mr.Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. [5] It is argued by Mr.Datta Majumder, learned Sr.Advocate, that entrustment of the property to the accused is a sine qua non for bringing charge under Section 409 IPC against him. According to Mr.Datta Majumder, learned Sr.Counsel, no inference can be drawn against the accused on the basis of the materials available on record that the sum allegedly defalcated by him was ever entrusted to him personally. Counsel submits that execution of the said work for development of JFMC was a collective liability for which the said sum of Rs.75,67,298/- was entrusted to a committee for utilization of the same. As a beat officer, it was the duty of the accused to supervise the execution of the work. Counsel submits that execution of the said work for development of JFMC was a collective liability for which the said sum of Rs.75,67,298/- was entrusted to a committee for utilization of the same. As a beat officer, it was the duty of the accused to supervise the execution of the work. Therefore, there was no scope for him to utilize the said sum of money for his personal gain. As a result, the charge under Section 409 IPC does not survive against him. Counsel submits that in view of the FIR statement of the informant forest officer and other materials available on record, arrest of the petitioner is not at all necessary. Counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on pre arrest bail on any condition. [6] Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP vehemently opposes the bail application. It is contended by Mr.Datta, learned PP that the accused is charged with a serious economic offence punishment of which may extend to imprisonment for life. [7] Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 , learned PP submits that the Apex Court has held that economic offences need to be visited with a different kind of approach in the matter of bail. Observation of the Apex Court in this regard is as under: “24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 25. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.” [8] It is further contended by learned PP that in view of the huge amount of money allegedly defalcated by the petitioner and the ratio decided by the Apex Court in the said judgment, the petitioner in no circumstances can be enlarged on pre arrest bail. Learned PP further submits that the petitioner misappropriated the whole sum by crediting the same into his personal bank account. Counsel, submits that without custodial interrogation of the petitioner it is not possible on the part of the investigating agency to establish the crime against the accused. Counsel, therefore, urges the court for rejecting his bail application. [9] Perused the entire case record including the updated CD. The CD includes the police statement of the informant and some other witnesses. Nowhere in their statements, the witnesses have stated that the petitioner has utilized the said amount for his personal gain. Even there is no material on record to infer that the petitioner transferred any amount to his personal bank account or to the account of any of his family members or relatives. [10] Seen the police statement of the informant forest officer. The case purely rests on documents and the documents are in the custody of the informant. There is no allegation against the petitioner that while he was in service, he ever made any kind of interpolation in any of the documents to hide his crime. It would also emerge from the statement of the informant that out of the sum of Rs.75,67,298/-, the petitioner has already submitted report of adjustment of a sum of Rs.54,14,407/- and adjustment for the rest of the amount is due. By this time petitioner has retired from service. Department did not ask for any adjustment report from him before he retired. No departmental proceeding has yet been drawn up against the petitioner. By this time petitioner has retired from service. Department did not ask for any adjustment report from him before he retired. No departmental proceeding has yet been drawn up against the petitioner. In these circumstances, petitioner is entitled to pre arrest bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. [11] Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO on the following conditions: (i) He will appear before the IO twice in a week until the investigation is complete. (ii) He will not try to influence any of the witnesses of this case directly or indirectly (iii) He will not leave the state without prior permission of the IO until the investigation of the case is complete. [12] In terms of the above, the bail petition stands allowed and disposed of. Interim application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.