1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No.1942 of 2016 Sanjay Kumar Dash …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Registrar, Ranchi University 3. Registrar, Kolhan University …… Opposite Parties with A.B. A. No.1021 of 2016 Dr. Ramakant Das …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Registrar, Ranchi University 3. Registrar, Kolhan University …… Opposite Parties with A.B. A. No. 2321 of 2016 Dr. Poonam Sahay …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Registrar, Ranchi University 3. Registrar, Kolhan University …… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate (in A.B.A. No.1021 of 2016) Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate (in A.B.A. No. 1942 of 2016) Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, (in A.B.A. No. 2321 of 2016) For the State : A.P.P For the Kolhan University : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Ranchi University : Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate …......... 13/ C.A.V on 22/02.2017 Pronounced on 28/02/2017 Since all the three anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 119 of 2016 for the offence registered under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in short, is that the on the basis of written report of Sri. S.C. Das, Registrar, Kolhan University, present case has been lodged alleging inter alia 2 that under the orders of the Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University, an enquiry was conducted by the financial advisor and finance officer of the University who submitted its report on 09.07.2015. The aforesaid report revealed that huge financial irregularities/defalcation of college fund done by Dr. R.K. Das (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1021 of 2016 and others between the periods 200304 to 20082009. Further it revealed that after making criminal conspiracy the petitioners along with others defalcated college funds in different manner. It is further alleged that when the petitioner Ramakant Das was posted as Principal of the A.B.M, College during the period of 2003 to 2011, wrong and excess demand of salary for the month of January, 2009, August 2009, as well as period of September 2009 to November, 2009 for Kolhan University amount to Rs. 25,76,372/ has been made. It is further alleged that this petitioner granted huge advance to the staffs as well as private party without mentioning entry. Hundreds of cheques, issued could not been traced either on the record of the college or with the concerned bank. There is withdrawal of Rs. 61,84,778/ and another withdrawal of Rs. 31,19,100/. It is further alleged that there is financial irregularities in respect of cash book. Vouchers and cheques counterfoil etc which are not available in the record. It is further alleged that Sanjay Kumar Das (petitioner in A.B.A. No.1942 of 2016) was posted as accountant in A.B.M, College, Jamshedpur and defalcated huge amount. Record reveals that the cash book, entire original vouchers and cheques counterfoil for the period 200304 to 200809 relating to account 'B' and 'C' are not available. Therefore, the transactions made during the that period cannot be verified due to unavailability of records. Record reveals when asked about the end use of even Rs. 7,000/ which Smt. Poonam Sahay (petitioner in A.B.A. No.2321 of 2016) claims to have received, she failed to give any reply regarding end use of this money. She seems to have defalcated this amount. When Shri R.K. Das was asked to clarify about the end use of Rs. 87,000/ drawn on 16.05.2009 through bearer cheque no. 12983, he failed to give any reply in this regard or any supporting vouchers to show end use of this money. The allegation against the petitioner Dr. Poonam Sahay is that while she was posted as Bursar of the ABM college during that period, huge amount of the college has been misappropriated. 3 A.B.A. No.1942 of 2016 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1942 of 2016 has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not signed any document for payment. The petitioner has been serving the A.B.M, College since last 43 years without any blemish and not a single complaint relating to his honesty and integrity has been made by any staff or professor of A.B.M, college or by any outsider. The petitioner is a grade III employee and has not power to take policy decisions, as a subordinate it was his obligation to obey the orders and directions of the Principal and bursar his immediate officers. The petitioner was not the authorized signatory of the cheques. The petitioner has never misappropriated any money out of the college fund nor any such amount was ever credited in the bank account of the petitioner. The enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty for non availability of the documents as the petitioner was on leave due to serious road accident. The petitioner has never misappropriated any money out of the college fund nor any such amount was ever credited in the bank account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the departmental proceedings the punishment of dismissal has been inflicted upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal and the same is pending adjudication before the chancellor of universities. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a patient suffering from various neuroproblems and is under treatment at Bangalore and frequently visiting Apollo Hospital, Bhubneshwar for regular check up and doctor advise. The petitioner has suffered with brain tumor and also a patient of Parkinson's disease. Photocopies of the medical prescriptions and report have been annexed as annexure2 series to this application. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. A.B.A. No.1021 of 2016 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1021 of 2016 has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the 4 entire allegations seems to have been made on the basis of the suspicion as because it is the case of the prosecution itself in the F.I.R that for the year 200304 none of the documents were available in the office of the College and therefore merely on the basis of audit report, the entire F.IR seems to have been lodged whereas the college authorities themselves have handed over the petitioner, his 'No Objection Certificate' in relation to such matters and otherwise also while he was being relieved from A.B.M, College, Jamshedpur to give his joining at Cooperative College, Jamshedpur, after he was transferred in the year, 2011, photo copy of the 'No Objection Certificate ' dated 31.07.2011 along with other documents have been annexed as Annexure2 series of this application. It is further submitted that apparently it is case wherein at the maximum departmental proceeding could have been initiated as because all the allegation as mentioned in the contents of the F.I.R speaks about irregularities and no illegally, and no allegation of any bungling of public money have been made against the petitioner. More so, the entire allegation that has been made in the audit report, no document is available in the record of the college and that all of them have been made after the delay of long period of time. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already retired from his service on 31st of December, 2015 and therefore, is a retired person and is suffering from several diseases. The petitioner is a senior citizen and he is maintaining his old ailing wife who is an old lady and suffers from several diseases. It is further submitted that the entire family members of the petitioner comprising of his son and wife alongwith he himself is suffering from various ailments and therefore the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. A.B.A. No.2321 of 2016 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 2321 of 2016 has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R and she has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in the departmental enquiry, no case was established, but the petitioner was terminated from the service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a woman has been falsely implicated in this case and recently her husband has died. It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate during 5 investigation & consequent trial and the petitioner is ready to execute any bond or undertaking for her appearance. It is further submitted that in her entire service tenure, she has never been involved in any financial bungling or the like. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counter affidavit in A.B.A. No.1942 of 2016. Referring to various paras of the supplementary counteraffidavit, learned A.P.P has submitted that witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. Learned counsel for the informantKolhan University has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counteraffidavit in A.B.A. No. 1942 of 2016 and submitted that admittedly the petitioner was posted as the Accountant of A.B.M, College, Jamshedpur at the time of the commission of such serious crimes as mentioned in the F.I.R. (Annexure1) to the instant A.B.A). It is further submitted that by instead of performing his basic duties the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the then Principal of the College, Sri R.K. Das the then Bursar, Smt. Poonam Sahay and other staff and the other employees of the college to commit defalcation of several crores of rupees belonging to the College/university. Thus his case has to be viewed and examined from the point of view of a willing conspirator and active participant in the entire act of embezzlement of the College fund rather then on a stand alone basis. The petitioner was the initiator and the starting point of series of acts of fraudulent withdrawal and subsequent defalcation of the college fund amounting to several crores of rupees which have been given in detail in the instant F.I.R lodged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner who started the sordid/Criminal game by preparing inflated demand for payment of salary to teachers and non teaching employees of the college month after month and signed the same to be the correct demand for this purpose. The demand for salary as shown with detailed breakup in the enclosed papers was realistic but in the summary of cash demand on the first page it was inflated by a big margin of several lacs of rupees. For instance, the demand for salary for January, 2009 as shown on page no. 01 to 02 of requisition of cash demand was rupees 10,58,360.00 but in the summary it was shown as 12,57,807.00. Thus, every month the demand of salary as shown in the summary was always higher then 6 the actual demand shown in the pages inside the requisition papers. Thus the petitioner prepared wrong and inflated demand for salary for the teachers and staffs every month and got in signed by the Principal of the College to be sent to the University for release of funds for salary payment. The several lacs of Rupees, 35,09,806/ were drawn from the account of the college and defalcated by showing cash advance to different persons including non existent persons and firms. It is further submitted that it was the petitioner who prepared all the cheques which were bearer cheques and not Account Payee to facilitate the act of defalcation. The details of some of these bearer cheques have been mentioned at page no. 193 of the instant A.B.A. In may cases blank cheques were prepared by the petitioner without any purpose being indicated in the counter foil and given to different persons with intention of defalcation. So, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counter affidavit and supplementary counteraffidavit in A.B.A. No.1021 of 2016. Referring to para various paras of the supplementary counteraffidavit, learned A.P.P has submitted that witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. In para 2, it is the restatement of the informant namely S.C. Das, para3 statement of the witness namely Sudhansu Kumar, in para 7 statement of witness namely Dr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari all have supported the case of prosecution. Learned counsel for the informantKolhan University opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has filed counteraffidavit in A.B.A. No. 1021 of 2016 and submitted that admittedly the petitioner was posted as the Principal of an institution of repute like A.B.M, College, Jamshedpur at the time of the commission of such serious crimes as mentioned in the F.I.R. (Annexure1) to the instant A.B.A). It is further submitted that by throwing all rules to wind the petitioner claims to have given cash advance of several lacs of rupees (Rs. 12,82,100.00) even to a 4th grade employee of the college, namely Sri S.S. Singh through bearer cheques. The entire amount was actually taken from the peon by the petitioner himself and the entire amount was defalcated. The petitioner took cash advance Rs. 2,14,000/ in his own name without 7 any purpose and defalcated the same. One of the modus operandi of the petitioner for defalcation was to show cash advances to have been made or bearer cheques issued in the names of non existing persons/firms and entities. Allegations of payments shown to have been made to non existent persons like Baldeo Sharma (Rs. 14,55,000/) , Sunil Kumar Rs. 40,000/, R.S. Singh Rs. 85,000/ and to non existent firms like Prakash Travels Rs. 2,15,000/ Gemini Travels RS. 28,706/, Sagar Enterprises Rs. 25,000.00/ and similar other entities have been found to be true in the spot inspection/detailed enquiry conducted by impartial and reliable persons. By various evil means including fabrication of documents and forgery the petitioner has committed a defalcation of Rs. 61,84,778/ from Account B of the college and Rs. 1,28,13,684 from account C of A.B.M college, Jamshedpur, where he was posted earlier. The petitioner removed the relevant records. It is further submitted that in the departmental proceedings, all the charges have been found to be proved. On the basis of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the University. The chancellor of UniversitiescumGovernor of Jharkhand has not differed from the findings of the conducting officer in the above mentioned departmental proceedings. So the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counter affidavit in A.B.A. No.2321 of 2016. Referring to various paras of the supplementary counteraffidavit, learned A.P.P has submitted that witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner while posted as Bursar of Abdul Bari Memorial College, Jamshedpur, during that period a huge amount of the college has been misappropriated. Learned counsel for the informantKolhan University has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counteraffidavit in A.B.A. No. 2321 of 2016 and submitted that admittedly the petitioner was posted as the Bursar of A.B.M college, Jamshedpur at the time of the commission of such serious crimes as mentiioned in the F.I.R (Annexure1) to the instant A.B.A. As the Bursar of such a reputed institution as A.B.M, College, Jamshedpur she was supposed to perform her duties with sincerity and 8 dedication. It is further submitted that the modus operandi of a series of transactions leading to embezzlement of college funds was to prepare requisition letters involving inflated demands for salary for the teaching and non teaching staff of the college and then to given false utilization for the expenditure of the amount received from the University. The money so saved as well as the amount available for other purposes was subsequently defalcated by showing cash advances to different persons/entities for different purposes against forged and fabricated vouchers. The petitioner knowingly and deliberately abdicated her statutory responsibilities in this regard to facilitate the defalcation. It is further submitted that it was the statutory duty of the petitioner as Bursar (expenditure) to ensure that all payments except those out of imprest advance are made by cheques to Professors and office staff by order cheques and to outsiders by Account Payee Crossed Cheques, but she colluded in all payments being made by Bearer Cheques and not Account Payee crossed cheques to facilitate the act of defalcation. The details of some of these bearer cheques have been mentioned in the F.I.R enclosed as Annexure1 to the instant A.B.A. In fact she allowed all payments to be made through bearer cheques knowingly for defalcation. It is further submitted that in some cases the amount mentioned in the cheques were subseqently changed for defalcation of a greater amount. For instance, a cheque of Rs. 7,000/ was subsequently made rupees 87,000/ by interpolation and the voucher submitted for the purpose was rupees 87,000/. But by abdicating her statutory duties the petitioner never raised any objection to such acts of interpolation and fraudulent withdrawal of college funds, she was herself a willing conspirator in this crime. Being a willing conspirator in the series of acts of defalcation, she never reported any irregularities and lapses to the Principal or to higher authorities in the University in a register to be maintained by her for the purposes. The violation of this statutory obligation/responsibility was done only to facilitate the acts of defalcation. So, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records and considering the nature of the allegation against these petitioners which is very serious, material collected by the I.O in the case diary, taking all these facts and 9 circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/