R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 409/419/420/ 467/468/471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of his arrest in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2006. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that that earlier a case was lodged against the petitioner as well as other persons, alleging therein that the petitioner being State Leprosy Eradication Officer transferred those 13 persons, who had never been validly appointed, to Latehar where they withdrew the money from the State Exchequer and the said case was registered as Mandar PS Case No. 27 of 2006 in which case the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, but subsequently the instant case was filed putting some allegations with only difference that number of persons, who were illegally transferred was reduced to seven though their names also figure in Mandar P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006.
(3.) HOWEVER , when the informant brought the matter to the knowledge of the Secretary, Health Department, he asked the informant to take step for deleting the name of the petitioner from the first information report and the reason was that earlier to lodgement of the case when this matter was enquired by the Committee, it was found that those 13 persons had never been appointed/transferred by this petitioner rather petitioner's signature had been forged and that under the direction of the Secretary, the informant did issue letter to the concerned police station, but it was not taken notice of and, thereby the petitioner was again put to trouble, though he is quite innocent and keeping in view the circumstances showing innocence of the petitioner was admitted to anticipatory bail in Mandar P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006, but subsequent to that, instant case has been lodged being Latehar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2006, wherein 7 persons, out of same 13 persons, are said to have been transferred by the petitioner, which allegations had earlier been found to be false by the Committee and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in this case also.;