Sildar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitionerâ€"Sildar in Crime No.307/2018 registered at Police Stationâ€"Aalot,

Districtâ€"Ratlam under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that in connivance with co-accused persons, petitioner Sildar withdrew Rs.8,27,044/-from the treasury on account

of payment of arrears of 28 teachers, while no such arrears were due to any of the teacher. The amount so withdrawn was never deposited in the

accounts of those teachers in whose name it was withdrawn from treasury, but the accused persons got the same deposited in some other accounts.

In their police statements those teachers have stated that neither they have submitted any application for payment of arrears nor they received any

such amount in their accounts, even they were not aware of the fact that any amount was withdrawn in their names.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner was only a clerk in the school. He only prepared the cases of payment of

arrears of teachers on the instructions of his Senior Officials and placed them before the Instructing Officer. He was having no authority to pass or

sanction to make payment of any amount withdrawn from the treasury. The entire responsibility lies on the drawing disbursing authority. In the present

case, drawing and disbursing authority was Abdul Nasir Khan. He only signed and cleared the arrears bills and facilitated withdrawal of the amount

from treasury and disbursement to the teachers concerned. He has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.51752/2019. Petitioner is a petty employee, was working as a clerk and performed his duties as per instruction of his Seniors. He is being made

escape goat, therefore, he be granted bail.

It is further submitted by learned Counsel that any admission made during departmental inquiry cannot be taken as admission in a criminal trial.

Further, any such admission is not part of charge-sheet, therefore, it cannot be considered against the petitioner and all this entitles the petitioner for

bail.

In the last, it is submitted that the entire amount allegedly misappropriated in the present case has been deposited in the treasury. On this ground

also, the bail be granted to the petitioner.

The alleged fraud was committed during the period from 1. 4.2014 to November, 2014, but it came into light when audit was conducted in the year

2018. As directed, District Education Officer lodged FIR. The police registered and investigated the same and have filed the charge-sheet.

The Prosecution has opposed the bail application. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner prepared fake bills on the

pretext of arrears of the teachers. Those teachers were not entitled for arrears and in some cases arrears were paid twice or thrice to the same

teachers. When forgery came to the light, they again forged challan papers and deposited the amount in the treasury in the name of same teachers in

whom the amount was earlier withdrawn.

It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the amount was withdrawn from the treasury in cash and never deposited in the

accounts of the teachers in whose name it was withdrawn.

Learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention on the statement made by Sildar Dabar, who has admitted that regarding alleged crime everything

was done by him. It is also argues that it was the petitioner, who has received entire amount withdrawn from the treasury. The petitioner has forged

and fabricated signatures. All the teachers in whose names the amount was withdrawn has further refused that they have returned any amount to the

treasury but it is a fact that after the fraud emanated in the audit report, entire amount is returned, which is again deposited in the treasury in the name

of those teachers and this time also the false documents have been prepared, therefore, the petitioner, who is the main perpetrator be not granted bail.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and also perused the case diary.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence produced by the prosecution against the petitioner with the

charge sheet before the trial Court, act attributed to him, I do not find it appropriate to grant him bail, therefore, application is dismissed.