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)