Geetanjali Gajbhiye vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 403/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (For short, IPC).

The case of the prosecution, is that during the period from 18.05.2021 to 20.09.2022 the applicant, while posted as Assistant Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon had sent a proposal of Rs. 270 lakhs for setting up a cage unit in Navagoan reservoir for which ultimately Rs. 216 lakhs were sanctioned for the aforesaid project. Further, it is stated that, Collector through administrative approval order dated 28.01.2021 and 04.12.2021 sanctioned 129.60 lakhs and remaining 86.40 lakhs was sanctioned by Director, Fisheries under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna. An amount of total Rs. 216.00 lakhs were issued for departmental work, i.e. caging in pisciculture for 72 cages, and as alleged irregularities were found in the grant amount received by the department and misuse of funds allegedly by misleading the administration on the basis of the forged documents of the beneficiaries. An advertisement dated 10.04.2021 was issued according to order and rules of department for caging in pisciculture, in lieu of which 10 applications were received and out of that 4 beneficiaries were selected namely Saroj Motghare, Durgesh Nandini, Hemlata Ramteke and Buvanlal Baghdaria, whereby they agreed to follow the rules of department. Further, it is alleged that 40% of sanctioned amount was not deposited in beneficiaries account and directly deposited in accounts of M/s Star Supplier, Talapara, Bilaspur, S.S Aquaculture Pathrari, Figenshwar, Rajim, and S.S Aquafeed Jhankhi, Raipur i.e., 108 lakhs, 6 lakhs and 102 lakhs respectively. No amount was taken from the beneficiaries for caging in pisciculture and the work of caging was given to the aforesaid suppliers in furtherance of which the amount sanctioned was directly deposited in their accounts through NEFT by the government and the fisheries department, of which audit has been done and no irregularities has been found. Hence, this application.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is a responsible citizen. The applicant is in jail since 27.07.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons, has misappropriated the amount received by the Department by misleading the administration on the basis of the forged documents of the beneficiaries to the tune of Rs. 216 Lakhs sanctioned by the Government for departmental work, also by obtained approval she has committed irregularities in the granted amount received by the department and has misused the amount, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant is a lady and she is in jail since 27.07.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application.

Let applicant, Geetanjali Gajbhiye, involved in Crime No. 403/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.