CrMP(M)Nos. 299, 265 & 274/08 7.4.2008 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, counsel for petitioners Madhu Kumar and Baldev Kumar. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent Chaman Lal. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. CrMP(M)Nos. 299, 265 & 274/08 The aforesaid three bail applications are being disposed of by a common order since they arise out of the same FIR. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.17/2008 dated 28.2.2008 has been registered against the petitioners 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 to 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 On inquiry, it was found that an amount of Rs. 6, 18,622/- which had been withdrawn by Madhu Kumar and the third petitioner Baldev Kumar had not been accounted for in the account books.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. The petitioners had filed bail applications before the Sessions Judge, Solan, who rejected the same on 17.3.2008. Hence the present applications. I have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Chaman Lal, and Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners Madhu Kumar and Baldev Kumar. 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 A number of cheques were encashed by Madhu Kumar himself and some cheques worth about Rs.2 lacs were withdrawn by Baldev Kumar.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. Mr. Bimal Gupta has laid great emphasis on the medical record of Madhu Kumar and submitted that Madhu Kumar has undergone 2 - 3 operations and requires treatment and, therefore, should be enlarged on bail. I have gone through the record. The last medical record produced is dated 3..5.2007. There is nothing on record to show that Madhu Kumar still requires treatment and if so what sort of treatment. Medical treatment can also be provided by the jail authorities. Therefore, I find no merit in the application filed by petitioner Madhu Kumar, which is rejected. It is, however, made clear that the jail authorities will ensure that proper medical aid is provided to Madhu Kumar as and when required. It is further clarified that due to ill health if the petitioner Madhu Kumar requires such treatment which cannot be provided by the jail authorities, he will be at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial Court giving complete details of the treatment required. Such application, if moved, shall be decided in accordance with law. Now I shall proceed to take up the case of Baldev Kumar. As per the police investigation, he was engaged as a driver with Madhu Kumar. There is nothing on record to show that he has taken benefit of the embezzled amount. No doubt, some of the cheques were got encashed by him. Mr. Bimal Gupta, submits that since Baldev Kumar was working as attendant/driver with Madhu Kumar, he could have been asked by Madhu Kumar to get the cheques encashed. No other role is ascribed to Baldev Kumar. It cannot be said with certainty at the stage that he conspired with Madhu Kumar. Therefore, in my opinion, he is entitled to the grant of bail. Taking up the case of petitioner Chaman Lal, it is apparent that he is a BEEO. The account of the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan was jointly operated by him along with Madhu Kumar. The allegation of the prosecution is that Madhu Kumar prepared the cheques and encashed the same. It is further alleged that Chaman Lal had conspired with Madhu Kumar. At this stage, it cannot be said with certainty that Chaman Lal had conspired with Madhu Kumar. It may also be a case where he was grossly negligent but may not have conspired with Madhu Kumar. No doubt, he has signed the cheques but at this stage, it would be appropriate to say with certainty that he was guilty of embezzlement of government funds. Therefore, I feel that he is entitled to grant of bail. In view of the above discussion, the bail applications of Chaman Lal and Baldev Kumar are allowed and they are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so and further undertaking to appear before the Court as and when directed to do so. The petitioners are further directed that they 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. The petitioners shall not attempt to hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever or tamper with the prosecution evidence; and the petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. As far as the application of Madhu Kumar is concerned, the same is rejected. It is, however, made clear that the jail authorities will ensure that proper medical aid is provided to Madhu Kumar as and when required. It is further clarified that due to ill health if the petitioner Madhu Kumar requires such treatment which cannot be provided by the jail authorities, he will be at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial Court giving complete details of the treatment required. Such application, if moved, shall be decided in accordance with law. All the applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti copy. April 7, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. s.