JAYA ROY,J - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS are accused in a case registered under Sections 406/420/417/34/120B of the I.P.C. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Sunita Kumari Mahto filed a complaint case in the Court of S.D.J.M. Porahat at Chaibasa bearing C/1 case No. 28/2007 alleging therein that she is a para teacher in village Makranda, Tola Rimidih upgraded Prathamik Vidyalaya and for construction of the School building Rs.4,27,872/ was sanctioned from Jharkhand Zila Pariyojna, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa in favour of Gram Siksha Samity, Rimidih. Further case of the complainant is that two persons namely Daud Akhtar Ali @ Daud Ali Khan and Sarwar Ali @ Ashraf Ali (both the petitioners) came to the complainant and introduced themselves as Contractor. They further told her that they will make construction of the School building properly. After taking permission, they started the construction work and to some extent their work was satisfactory. Thereafter, they demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/ from the complainant for purchasing the materials for construction. The complainant after taking permission from Secretary of the School Committee, the complainant and the said Secretary have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 80,000/ from S.B.I., Jeraikella and handed over the same to the petitioners for the construction work of the School building. But after taking the said amount, the petitioners fled away and did not complete the construction work. On the basis of the complaint petition, the present case was registered i.e. Jaraikella P.S. Case No. 03 of 2009 (G.R. Case No. 263 of 2009) against both the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that all the allegations made against them are false and fabricated. The complainant herself had misappropriated the fund sanctioned by the Government and instituted the false case against the petitioners.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the State has filed counter affidavit in this case and submitted that the sufficient materials against the petitioners have come in the investigation. He has further submitted that in the supervision note it has come that the petitioner's business is to get the contract and thereafter devour the money and the petitioner no.1 is also involved in another criminal case of similar nature. It also submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted in this case against both the petitioner under Sections 406/417/420/34 I.P THErefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as sufficient materials have come against the petitioners in the investigation furthermore, the petitioner no. 1 involved in another criminal case of similar nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.;