Amresh Kumar Jha vs State Of Jharkhand

Anant Bijay Singh, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Addl. P.P.

Petitioner has been made accused for the offence Under sections 409,418,419,420,467,468,471,120B on the basis written complaint made by the

informant Alexius Ekka, DFO- cum- Project Manager of Water Shed Cell-cum- Data Collection Center Seraikella, Kharsawan alleging therein that

the Chief Executive Office, Jharkhand State Water Shed Mission- cum- Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi vide letter dated

04.04.2017 issued in the name of Sri Amresh Kumar Jha, the then Land Conservation Officer, Seraikella, Kharsawan- cum-PIA Water Shed ,

Garanala sanctioned government money amounting to Rs. 1,36,45,357/- out of which Rs.1,17,52,994/-have deposited in the account of 10 different

Water Shed Committee. After inquiry, it was found that Rs. 30,21,567/- was misappropriated by the petitioner.

The inquiry report further reveals that on 01.09.2016, petitioner received cheques from the Secretary of different Committees where the said

schemes were taken and withdrew the amount of Rs. 31,21,067/-. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the instant case has been instituted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail custody since 19.09.2018.

It is submitted that in order to save their skin, a story was created that the petitioner has taken signatures of the Secretaries of the concern societies

in the blank cheques.

It is further submitted that at page-24 of the complaint filed by B.Nijulingappa, Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand State Water Shed Mission, at

Col.5 PIA had submitted the statement, wherein it is stated that out of the total amount Rs. 1,25,27,051/- was spent.

It is lastly submitted that the informant is not sure as to which what has been misappropriated by the petitioner.

Case diary has been received in this case, wherein at para-88, the I.O. has recorded the statement of Lakhan Mahto, who has supported the

prosecution case.

At para-89, the statement of Fauzia Rahman has been recorded in which she has stated that petitioner used to receive cheques before execution of

work. She has further stated that no order was issued by the Jharkhand State Mission to withdraw the remaining amount. It is further submitted that

one Dasrath Pradhan opposed the said practice but despite that after release of first installment of Rs. 5 lacs to the committee, no further amount was

released. Similar is the statement of Tiju Ram Machhua at para-90.

In this case, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state, wherein at para-12 it is stated that except the present case, three cases being

Chakradharpur P.S.case no. 64/2018 U/s 420,406,468,409,467,120B IPC, Koderma P.S.case o. 160/2011 U/s 409,420 IPC and Hazaribagh P.S.case

no. 11/2017 U/s 420,467,468,471,406,409,120B IPC and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(C)(D) of Anti Corruption Act are pending against this

petitioner.

Considering the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case diary and the statement made in the court affidavit filed on behalf of the State

and also considering the fact that petitioner is habitual offender, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, prayer of bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.