CrMP(M)No. 722 of 2008. 24.7.2008 Present: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht and Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. CrMP(M)No. 722 of 2008 Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.17/2008 dated 28.2.2008 has been registered against the petitioner and two others for having committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 477(A) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. The prosecution story in brief is that petitioner Madhu Kumar was working as Block Research Co-ordinator ( for short: BRCC) in the Block Education Office, Kuthar, District Solan, H.P. Accused Chaman Lal was the Block Education (Elementary) Officer (for short: BEEO) at the relevant time. There is a Central Government Scheme, named as “Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan” ( SSA). Funds have been provided under this scheme. These funds are administered by the SSA. The cheques issued on behalf of the BRCC are required to be signed both by the BRCC and BEEO. According to the prosecution, 87 cheques amounting to Rs.6,18,622/- have been issued by accused Madhu Kumar in the name of “self”. These cheques upto 31.12.2007 were signed by accused Chaman Lal, who retired on 31.12.2007. Thereafter some of the cheques are signed by his successor. When cheques were issued for payments to some schools, the said cheques bounced due to inadequate funds. . On inquiry, it was found that an amount of Rs. 6, 18,622/- which had been withdrawn by Madhu Kumar and the third petitioner Baldev Kumar had not been accounted for in the account books. Hence this case of misappropriation and embezzlement of funds. As per the prosecution case, it is Madhu Kumar who had issued the cheques. All these cheques have been issued to “self”. A number of cheques were encashed by Madhu Kumar himself and some cheques worth about Rs.2 lacs were withdrawn by Baldev Kumar. As the prosecution story stands, the involvement of Madhu Kumar in the offence is a writ large. There is no explanation as to where this amount of Rs. 6 lacs has gone. Public funds meant for providing education to the under- privileged children, have prima facie, been mis-appropriated by Madhu Kumar. Earlier also the petitioner had filed Cr. M.P(M) No. 299 of 2008, which was rejected by this Court on 7th April, 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, which has been dismissed mainly on the ground that this Court had earlier rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Shri Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some changes have taken place in between. The first is that challan has been filed and secondly, even after the earlier order was passed the petitioner has been under constant medical treatment and a report of the Medical Board constituted to examine the petitioner has also been filed. No doubt, that the petitioner is charged with a serious office. Therefore, previously I had not granted him bail. However, now the petitioner has already been behind the bars for almost five months. It is also proved from the material on record that the petitioner has been under constant treatment during the last four months at the Indira Gandhi Medical Hospital, Shimla and Medical Board headed by the Senior Medical Superintendent of Indira Gandhi Medical Hospital, Shimla has opined that patient has recurrent episode of pancreatitis which require hospitalization at any time. It has also been informed that the petitioner needs regular treatment from a psychiatrist. In my previous order while rejecting the bail, I had directed the jail authorities to ensure that proper medical aid is provided to Madhu Kumar and had also given liberty to Madhu Kumar to file a fresh bail application giving complete details of the treatment required. Such details have been furnished and from a perusal of these various documents, it is apparent that the petitioner is suffering from a serious illness and requires constant care and attention. In fact, it may not be possible for the jail authorities to give him such care and attention. It is also come on record that the petitioner has been advised liquid and fat free diet. The jail authorities may find it virtually impossible to provide such a diet to the petitioner. After the previous bail application was rejected, the petitioner was admitted in Zonal Hospital, Solan on 11.4.2008. He again had to be taken to Indira Gandhi Medical Hospital, Shimla on 8.5.2008 and again remained admitted in hospital during the month of June, 2008. Keeping in view these additional facts brought on record and also the circumstances which have changed since the last order was passed, I am of the opinion that a case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of bail. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the bail application filed by the petitioner is allowed. He is directed to be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:- 1. that the petitioner shall furnish personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court, undertaking to appear before the Investigating Officer as well as the trial Court as and when called upon to do so; 2. That the petitioner shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each from local sureties of Himachal Pradesh to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 3. That the petitioner shall not directly himself or through his relatives or friends try to contact the prosecution witnesses; 4. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Investigating team or Court; 5. That the petitioner shall not attempt to hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 6. That the petitioner shall not in any manner delay the trial of the case. In case the petitioner does not appear before the trial Court on the date fixed the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail. 7. That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. It is also made clear that this bail has been granted only in respect of FIR No. 17 of 2008, mentioned above. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copy Dasti, on usal charges. 24th July, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. ™