AB 2099/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Muni r, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. The petitioner No. 1 Soriya Khanom is a female member of Anchalik Panchayat whil e the petitioner No. 2 is the postmaster of Palhaji Branch. The allegation in th e First Information Report that has been brought by the first informant is that the petitioner No. 1 being the member of the Anchalik Panchayat obtained the pas sbook of the job card holders and withdrew money from the passbook on 12.5.2011 amounting to ‘9360/- and misappropriated the same. In the same way the petitione r No. 2 alongwith Md. Tomez Uddin, the president of the Anchalik Panchayat also have misappropriated ‘9,000 and ‘10000/- of other job card holders. It is alleg ed in the First Information Report that the petitioners after obtaining thumb im pression had withdrawn money from the pass book and misappropriated the same. An FIR having been lodged, Barpeta P.S. Case No. 644/2011(corresponding to G.R. Ca se No. 1374/11) u/s 120(B)/420/406/468/506/34 IPC was registered and the petiti oners being apprehensive of arrest in connection with this case, have filed this petition u/s 438 CrPC to provide them the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The relevant case dairy is produced for final disposal of this bail application. The materials available before this Court have been perused and scrutinised. It appears to this Court that the petitioners alongwith the president indulged in withdrawal and misappropriation of the amount from the passbook of the job card holders without engaging them under the scheme. From the enquiry report produced by the learned P.P., it appears that the petiti oners have withdrawn money from the passbook of the job card holders and misappr opriated the same. There being enough materials available in the case diary agai nst the petitioners, this Court finds no ground to provide the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners. This petition accordingly stands dismissed. The interim order provided vide order dated 20.7.2011 stands vacated.