IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17657 of 2010 PURUSHOTTAM SINGH. Versus STATE OF BIHAR. ----------- 2 19.05.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Bettiah P.S. Case No. 0115 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of allegation as against the present petitioner who holds the post of Range Officer is regarding non furnishing of an account to the extent of Rs. 3,57,432/-. The F.I.R. has been instituted on the basis of written report of the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Deputy Director, Valmiki Tigar Project stating therein that the petitioner was given an advance of Rs. 6,55,000/- at the first instance and in addition thereto he was given a further advance of Rs. 16,000/- making a total advance of Rs. 6.71 lacs. The amount had been advanced for carrying out certain departmental work. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to give 2 account for an amount of Rs. 2,30,529/- as also failed to give account to a further amount of Rs. 1,26,903/-. In this manner it is alleged that the petitioner could not furnish an account in relation to Rs. 3,57,432/- out of the total advance given to him and the said amount has been misappropriated by the petitioner giving rise to the criminal case in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that the F.I.R. has been instituted in contravention of the Government Circular dated 9.6.2008 enclosed as Annexure-2 but even on merits the allegation is palpably false. He submits that following the Circular a query was also made by the Director, Ecology and Environment, Government of Bihar from the Conservator of Forest as to whether the procedure was duly followed. Learned counsel with reference to the allegation set out in the F.I.R., refers to a representation of the petitioner present at Annexure-6 of the anticipatory bail application and submits that the entire amount advanced to the petitioner has been accounted for and well explained and the Divisional Forest Officer 3 without having regard to the materials available on record has instituted the criminal case in a whimsical manner without verifying the statement made by the petitioner. He submits that the accounts given by the petitioner may be verified by any senior authority of the Forest Department to the exclusion of the Divisional Forest Officer who is the author of the criminal case and upon independent verification of the accounts submitted by the petitioner if any amount still remains outstanding the petitioner would remit the same. He further submits that in any event in absence of there being any direct evidence against the petitioner of misappropriation or of submitting any false or forged receipts, no offence under Section 409 is made out. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel let the petitioner, Purushottam Singh be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from today upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. 4 Case No.0115 of 2010, subject to the condition stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subject to a further stipulation that the accounts submitted by the petitioner would be under scrutiny and verification by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Patna and if it is ultimately found that any part of the advance has remained unexplained or the petitioner has failed to submit the accounts for any part of advance, the petitioner would be under a duty to refund the said amount in two equal monthly installments. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J.)