Case Law Details
Rakesh Kumar Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner, an Accounting Clerk-cum-Computer Operator under the 15th Finance Commission in Baliapur Block, contended that the allegations were false, that he had cooperated with the investigation by replying to the notice under Section 41-A CrPC, and that the documents in question were genuine.
The State opposed the application, submitting that the petitioner was involved in the misappropriation of ₹63 lakh. According to the FIR and the enquiry, a firm operated by the petitioner’s wife, along with his brother and sister-in-law, acted as a vendor under Block schemes and received ₹19 lakh. It was further alleged that ₹5.58 lakh was transferred from the firm’s account to the petitioner’s personal account and ₹44 lakh of government funds under various 15th Finance Commission schemes was transferred to his personal bank account. The enquiry also alleged that part of the government funds was diverted from beneficiaries’ accounts to the petitioner’s account using fake vouchers, many of which had not been approved by the competent authority.
The High Court noted that witnesses referred to in the case diary supported the prosecution case. Considering the allegations and the material available in the case diary, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Cases Discussed
No cases discussed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baliapur PS Case No.103 of 2024, for offence registered under section 467, 468, 471, 420, 406/34 of IPC, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and the allegations are false and the petitioner has also replied to the notice issued under section 41-A Cr.PC. He next submits that the documents are not fake, however, false allegations are made, and on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there of misappropriating a sum of Rs.63 lacs against the petitioner and in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
5. In the FIR, the allegations are made against the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Accounting Clerk cum Computer Operator under 15th Financial Commission in Baliapur Block, however, and in the enquiry, it is found that A.M. Enterprises run by Mrs Uma Mahto, who is wife of the present petitioner and his brother Naresh Mahato and his wife, Anita Mahato were working as vendors/suppliers in the schemes of the Block and Rs.19 lac has been paid in the bank account of that establishment in the financial years 2023-24 and later on, the said establishment was banned due to not depositing the amount of GST and royalty etc. regularly and it has been further alleged that a sum of Rs.5.58 lacs has been transferred from the account of A.M. Enterprises in the personal account of the present petitioner and further on enquiry, it has come that government amount of Rs.44 lacs vested in various schemes in the 15th Finance Commission has been transferred to the personal bank account of the present petitioner and the allegations are also there that the petitioner has transferred a part of government amount from the account of the beneficiaries to his personal account and the vouchers which were used in transferring the amount were also found to be fake and many of them have not been passed by the competent authority and in paragraph no.3, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36 and 59 of the case diary, the witnesses have supported the case against the petitioner, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, and as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected and consequently, this anticipatory bail application being A.B.A.No.3456 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed.
Author Bio
