IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No. 4987 of 2008
RAMASHISH MATHO
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
With
Cr.Misc. No.18998 of 2008
RAMNATH PRASAD SINGH
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
6/ 07.07.2008 Both the cases are taken up together as they arise out of the
same case.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Addl. P.P.appearing for the State.
The case is under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408, 409,
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the allegations made in the FIR against the
accused persons Rs. 15 lacs was allotted to the District Superintendent
of Education, Nalanda during the financial year 1999-2000 for the
purchase of stationery, but the vouchers and other documents showed
that the purchases made were illegal and irregular. The stock register of
the office revealed that in spite of the excess attendance register of
students and other registers supplied, purchase order was unnecessarily
made in respect of these registers. There has been cutting and over
writing on large scale in the registers.
It appears from para 36 of the case diary that according to the
audit report the following irregularities were found;-
(1) Against allotment of Rs. 15 lacs for the year
1999-2000 for the purchase of stationery
expenditure was made for Rs. 15,59,323/-.
2
(2) During the year 2000-2–1 the allotment for
the above purchase was Rs. 11,68,050/- and
purchase was made for Rs. 11,30,000/- and
out of that amount Rs. 7,56,500/- only had
been paid and stock distribution register was
not made available for audit in respect of the
purchase.
(3) Certificate regarding stock verification was
not recorded by District Superintendent of
Education as per rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire
responsibility for the purchase of stationery was on the purchase
committee , but petitioner Ramashish Mahto at the relevant time was
Area Education Officer and petitioner Ramnath Prasad Singh was Head
Master , Buniyad Vidhalaya, Gokulpur in Harnaut Block and on
2.5.2000 he had taken additional charge of Regional Education Officer
and he remained in charge of R.E.O. till 31.5.2001 when he retired. In
para 30 of the case diary it has been mentioned as to who were the
members of the purchase committee and that para does not show that
any of the petitioners were member of the purchase committee. There is
nothing in the case diary to show that the petitioners were involved in
the purchase or supply of stationery or they had any occasion to make
any cutting or over writing. The order of the learned Sessions Judge
would also show that nothing so far has been found against the
petitioners, but as the investigation is continuing, the anticipatory bail
3
petition of the petitioners was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer.
Considering the above submissions of the learned
counsel, the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail is allowed. It is
ordered that in case of their surrender before the concerned Magistrate
within a month from today or arrest by police, they shall be released on
bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nalanda in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 128 of
2005, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C.
DKS/ (Rekha Kumari,J)