NARENDRA NATH TIWARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1587/2004 which is now converted into Sindri P.S. Case No. 62/2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 3410/2004 registered under Sections 120B, 406, 417, 409, 418, 420, 465, 471 IPC, pray for grant of anticipatory bail. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that petitioners, who are the officers of the Notified Area Committee, Sindri, have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant who happens to be one of the retired employees of the same Notified Area Committee. Learned Counsel submitted that there is a vague allegation against the petitioners defalcation of money between the period from the year 1998 to 2004; the allegation is that said petitioners have not been proceeded against on the basis of an enquiry report of the District Accounts Officer, wherein it was stated that the Executive Officer is responsible for all misappropriation and corruption; it has been alleged that a huge sum of money has been looted/ defalcated in the name of several development schemes and that the work was allotted to petitioner Om Prakash Singh but the work was nut completed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said allegations are unspecific and vague inasmuch as no work was allotted to any of the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 is the Tax Collector, No. 2 is Nazir, No. 3 is Assistant, No. 4 is Supervisor, No. 5 is Assistant Tax Collector, Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are Junior Engineers working in different Blocks, No. 9 is Assistant Engineer, No. 10 is Block Development Officer, Dhanbad and No. 11 is the Executive Officer cum Special Officer of the Notified Area Committee, Sindri. The petitioners are all responsible officers and they are in permanent service. It has further been submitted that the complainant has got personal grudge against the petitioners. When his retiral benefits could not be released, because of a criminal case under Section 409 IPC. The complainant several times approached the petitioners for allotting him some scheme but they could not oblige him. It has further been submitted that earlier also writ applications were filed by the complainant against the petitioners for a direction to initiate criminal prosecution but the same were rejected. CWJC No. 771/98(R) was dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000/ - for suppression of material facts.
(3.) THE learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that though there is no specific allegation against the petitioners but there are serious allegations of defalcation of government money against them and as such the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.;