IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37966 of 2009 RAM SAW ROOP SINGH………Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……………………O.P. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary,Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh , Advocate with Cr.Misc. No.45613 of 2009 GANESH SHARMA Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR Petitioner ------------ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. with Cr.Misc. No.11318 of 2010 KANHAIYA SHARMA Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR O.P. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh No.3, Advocate. For the State in all the cases : Mr. Atul Chandra Additional P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. -------- 8 12.5.2010 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners in all the three applications apprehend their arrest in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 26 of 2009 dated 3.3.2009 registered under sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3(1) (V) SC & ST (POA) Act. 3. According to the prosecution case petitioner - 2 - Ramswaroop Singh is the Chairman of Lucca Pacs (Primary Agriculture Credit Society) in the district of Aurangabad. Petitioner Ganesh Sharma and petitioner Kanhaiya Sharma are the Managers of Cooperative Bank, Rafiganj for two different periods. The accused persons are alleged to have committed forgery and are also alleged to have cheated and misappropriated huge Government money amounting to about Rupees one crore. 4. According to the FIR the petitioner Ramswaroop Singh, being the Chairman of the Lucca Pacs, is alleged to have taken Crop Insurance Policy in the name of different persons including in the name of fake and dead persons and under criminal conspiracy with the Bank Managers, who are petitioners in this batch of cases before this Court, himself received the entire amount and thereby had misappropriated the huge Govt. money. 5. It was submitted on behalf of petitioners that though Crop Insurance Policies were taken in the year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, but no payment had been actually made by the Bank and, therefore, allegation of criminal misappropriation of money by the petitioners are absolutely wrong and false. It was - 3 - also submitted that petitioner Ganesh Sharma is not even named in the FIR as an accused. By referring to certain paragraphs of the case diary, it was submitted that even some of the beneficiaries have not supported the prosecution allegation against the petitioners. Therefore, on these pleas, besides others, it was prayed that petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant have strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners. By referring to different paragraphs of the case diary it was submitted that there are ample materials to show the complicity of the petitioners in the crime in question. It was also submitted that by hatching a criminal conspiracy, they have misappropriated huge amount of Govt. fund of about rupees one crore , which was required to be distributed amongst the petty/ small farmers towards their Crop Insurance Policies. It was further highlighted by them that petitioners have deliberately not brought on record the entire copy of the FIR along with the documents, which are part of the FIR vide Annexure-1. However by filing a counter affidavit, informant has brought on - 4 - record the entire copy of the FIR along with its attached documents/letters. 7. From the allegation disclosed in the FIR vide annexure-1, it is apparent that in view of ratio decidendi laid by this Court in the case of Sajjo and others Vs State of Bihar, reported in 2010 (2) BLJ 181, the offences under the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act are inapplicable against the petitioners, therefore, petitions filed by the petitioners under section 438 Cr.P.C. are maintainable. 8. However, from the allegations disclosed in the FIR vide Annexure-1 and from perusal of provisions regarding National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, it is apparent that accused persons i.e. the petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy, and Crop Insurance Policies were taken in the name of different farmers including in the name of dead and fake farmers and payments were made not to the real beneficiaries rather payments were taken in the name of fake and dead persons, set up by the petitioners and other accused persons. From the documents attached with the FIR it is apparent that the Crop Insurance Policies were taken in the financial year 2004-2005 as also in the financial year 2005-2006 and payments were taken in the name of - 5 - those fake and dead persons, but real beneficiaries were denied such benefits. No papers have been produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim that actually money was not withdrawn towards the Crop Insurance Scheme during the relevant period. Petitioner Ganesh Sharma and Kanhaiya Sharma are said to be accused in some other criminal case also of this nature. 9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into consideration that there is allegation of criminal misappropriation of huge Govt. money amounting to rupees one crore, this court is not inclined to accede to the prayers made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. All the three petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners are dismissed. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today in the case referred to above and, if so advised, seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman