Santulal Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been

arrested on 09.11.2021 in connection with Crime No.372/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli (CG) for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, a drain was constructed at ward No.8, Mugeli. After completion of the drain the amount was paid to the contractor of

Rs.13,21, 818/-. Subsequently, the complaints were made and on enquiry it was found that the drain was not constructed at all, however, the applicant

in connivance with the officers of the Municipal Council signed the cheque, whereby the contractor was benefited. Thereby the offence has been

committed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as the President of Municipal Council and according to Rule 148 & 149 of

the C.G. Municipal Accounts Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1971'), the applicant believed on the measurement & bill which was

forwarded to him by the municipal officers and he relied on the same being the President of Municipal Council and joint signatory has signed the same

which was endorsed to him at the last. He would further submit that the applicant has not deliberately done anything which would amount to

committing the offence. He would further submit that being the President of Municipal Council, the criminal liability cannot be attached as he is

protected by Rule 148 & 149 of the Rules, 1971, wherein he relied on the completion report which was given to him by the officers. He would further

submit that after the issue was aggravated the entire amount was deposited back by the concerned contractor in the municipal account of

Rs.13,21,818/-. He would further submit that no further investigation is necessary against the present applicant and he is in jail since 09.11.2021,

therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the construction for which the payment

was made was never done at all. He would further submit that when the complaints were received and the enquiry was conducted wherein the

applicant was also given opportunity of hearing, this fact came to fore. He would further submit that the applicant inconvenience with other officers of

the Municipal Council has put the signature whereby the contractor was benefited. It is also submitted that depositing the money back by the

contractor would also amount to conspiracy as how the applicant would know when the applicant was not at all in helm of the affairs so as to manage

to get the amount deposited back. He would further submit that in the similar set of facts one more complaint is registered against the applicant and

further investigation may be required, therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

Perused the document. Considering the nature of allegation it is not in dispute that the applicant was working as President, Municipal Council. After

going through the provisions of Rules 148 & 149 of the Rules, 1971 prima facie it appears that the completion report is to be given by the Engineer and

the officers of the Municipal Council and the applicant was working as President of the Municipal Council and was a joint signatory, therefore, taking

into such facts and the nature of the allegation and the evidence appears to be documentary in nature against the present applicant and the applicant is

in jail since 09.11.2021, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/-

with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the

said Court.

8. Certified Copy Today.