IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53366 of 2007 NAGDEO PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.56667 of 2007 SARJU PRASAD & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.1631 of 2008 SURESH PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR --------- 3 14.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the State. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case under Section 409 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. There are three letters which are part of Fardbeyan. It appears from the report dated 27.1.2003 submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Tube well Division, Ara to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, that the Superintending Engineer inspected five tube well sunk at different places at the instance of the department and found that without completion of works M.Bs. were prepared and payments were made to the contractors even in excess of amount agreed upon for execution of works. In total more than rupees seventeen lacs were paid to the contractors in excess of works done. The Chief Engineer in turn sent his report to the Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Patna holding the concerned Engineers and contractors responsible for swindling of government - 2 - money through letter dated 25.1.2003. Surprisingly, the Secretary vide its letter dated 12.4.2003 directed the Executive Engineer to lodge the case only against contractor. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer lodged the case against the contractor. However, in course of investigation the police found that these petitioners who were Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive engineer at the relevant time were responsible for payment of money in excess of works done by contractor on the basis of false M.B. entry. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that supervision note of D.I.G. at paragraph 67 and supervision note of S.P. at paragraph 70 of the case diary would go to show that after investigation of the case the contractor completed the works and therefore, there is no question of misappropriation of government money. It is further submitted that the police has let off the contractor on the ground of completion of work and has wrongly implicated the petitioners in this case as being responsible for misappropriation. Case diary is on record. On perusal of it, it appears that first of all the Secretary of Minor Irrigation Department attempted to save the engineers and in course of investigation the higher police officers have tried to save the contractor. However, the supervision note of Dy.S.P. which is at paragraph 25 and statements of local witnesses recorded in paragraphs 7,8 and 9 of the case diary would go to show that still the works have not been completed. The tube wells are not in operational condition and money to the tune of Re.17 lacs have been - 3 - misappropriated by the petitioners and contractor Thus, having regard to the facts an circumstances of the case as well as nature of accusation I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)