R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) THE Petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 406/409/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that one Devendra R. Purohit entered into an agreement with the District Administration, Gumla whereby it had been agreed upon that he would grow Safed Musli over 100 acres of land and also Stevia over another 100 acres of land situated within three blocks. According to the agreement, said cultivation was to be completed within three years so that the benefit be given to the villagers/beneficiaries. But after one year, a case was lodged wherein it was alleged that Mr. Purohit, by not growing Stevia and Safed Musli over 100 acres of land a piece, has defalcated a sum of Rs. 2,24,71,358/, 19,92,406 and 83,94,277/and for which, three separate cases were lodged, but all those cases have been lodged under misconception of the fact as Mr. Purohit under the original MOU had been allocated certain pieces of land, which subsequently got changed whereby other plots were allotted and he was directed orally to grow Safed Musli and Stevia over the same on the plea that postdate sanction would be granted later on, but in fact, it had never been granted and before the completion of three years, three separate cases were lodged against Devendra R. Purohit and this Petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was posted at District Agriculture Officer cum District Horticulture Officer, Gumla, who was supposed to grant certificate relating to progress made in the cultivation of Safed Musli and Stevia and as the Petitioner had granted certificate of growing Safed Musli and Stevia by Devendra R. Purohit, the Petitioner has been made accused. It was pointed out that this Court, while granting bail to Devendra R. Purohit, took notice of the fact that under MOU certain pieces of land were given to Mr. Purohit for growing Safed Musli and Stevia, but subsequently, the said Purohit was asked to grow Safed Musli and Stevia on different plots of the land on the assurance that postdate sanction would be granted later on, which was never granted and accordingly, it never came in writing that the plots got changed and, therefore, when inspection was made over the original lands which was part of the MOU, it was found that Safed Musli and Stevia has never been grown whereas I.O., in course of investigation, did find that Safed Musli and Stevia had been grown over the other plots and keeping in view all these aspects of the matter, Devendra R. Purohit has been admitted to bail vide B.A. No. 7506 of 2010 and, therefore, the Petitioner also deserves to be admitted on bail.
(3.) MR . T.N. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the trial is going on and even a Certificate Proceeding has been drawn against Devendra R. Purohit and this Petitioner.;