IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34307 of 2008 LALA AJAY KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 08.09.2008 Heard. The petitioner who was an accountant in the police department is seeking bail in a case of fraudulent withdrawal from the salary head of the Dog Squad Unit of Criminal Investigation Department. The First Information Report is based on the basis of the account audit report of the establishment for the financial years 1994- 1995 and 2000-2001 which reveals a total defalcated amount of Rs. 9,59,000/- only. The details are in paragraph 4 of the typed copy of the report and according to it, the salary for the Personnel of the above noted unit for the months of April and May, 1996 was withdrawn twice. Not only that, the advice slip in respect of some of the bills as indicated in the First Information Report, were found missing and some of the office copies of the bills were also found missing. On investigation, it was discovered that it was a deep rooted conspired act of the petitioner and others, like the cashier, who had created false acquittance roll bills and false entries in the cash register and thereunder had defalcated the amount. The contention is that for the same occurrence there could not be multiple prosecution and that can be violation of the constitutional principles of double jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution and that for the sake of administering justice as per the principles of above noted provision the cases under all the FIRs - 2 - should be consolidated. Further contention was that the petitioner was simply ordained to create the salary bills and as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police of the Section and that was always in consonance with the orders of the S.P. and if at all any payment of cash was made, for that the petitioner could not be liable, it could be the cash clerk. The next contention was that some of the accused persons have been granted bail by this Court. In support of the contention a copy of order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 758 of 2004 has been produced. The principles of double jeopardy can be attracted under the facts alleged and the principle can also be considered only when it is not covered by the provisions of Chapter 17 of the Cr.P.C., especially taking into account the provision of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. It could be falling for the decision by the Magistrate who could be having the case for trial, after the investigation is over and the matter is sent for trial. The factual details as furnished by the department through the First Information Report is so clear and glaring also indicating the fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation committed by the petitioner and considering which I am not inclined to direct the petitioners release on bail, petition dismissed. kksinha/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)