Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh Prasad Harijan @ Ganesh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.290 of 2020
---------
Ganesh Prasad Harijan @ Ganesh Harijan
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
---------
Order No.10 Dated 30th June, 2022
I.A No.6535 of 2021
Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present Interlocutory Application being I.A No.6535 of
2021 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the petitioner during pendency of the
present Criminal Revision.
3. The Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda in Criminal Appeal
No.01/2019 by the said Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda affirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed by Sri. Ravi
Kumar Bhaskar, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in
connection with G.R Case No.368 of 2002 (supplementary) arising out
of Basantrai P.S Case No.54 of 2002, corresponding to T.R No. 743 of
2018 by which the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years respectively, for the
offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner
has further been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six (06)
months and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so
far as this petitioner is concerned, this is a case of excess payment of
Rs.68,442/- and the allegation against this petitioner as levelled in the
F.I.R is not correct. It is further submitted that it was a Contractor
Sukhdeo Rajak who had to execute the work and instruction was given
to execute the work and payment was released in his favour. Learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely been implicated in this case for
misappropriated of alleged Rs.68,442/-. It is further submitted that the
age of the petitioner is about 73 years and he had retired on 31.07.2008
from the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer. It is further submitted
that the petitioner has surrendered in the learned Court below on
21.09.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in
custody for more than 09 months and hence, he may be enlarged on
bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
bail.
6. Perused the Lower Court Records and I.A No.6535 of 2021 and
considered the submission made on behalf of both the parties.
7. From perusal of the Lower Court Record, it would appear that
the Anticipatory Bail was granted to the petitioner by the learned Court
below itself. However, learned Trial Court has held him guilty for the
charges under Sections 420 and 406 of the IP C and sentenced him to
undergo the sentences as mentioned above.
8. It reveals from the L.C.R so far as this petitioner is concerned,
the allegation is that while he was posted as B.D.O. at Pathargama
and he is said to have given payment to the Contractor for a sum of
Rs.68,442/- for the work done worth Rs.21,442/- It transpires that the
work was to be completed in the year 1995, however, the case has
been instituted on 03.04.2022. It also appears that the petitioner had
retired as District Panchayat Raj Officer.
9. Considering the fact and in the circumstances of this case, the
petitioner namely, Ganesh Prasad Harijan @ Ganesh Harijan, is directed
to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Sri Ravi Kumar Bhaskar, learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Godda or his Successor Court, in connection with G.R Case
No.368 of 2002 (supplementary) arising out of Basantrai P.S Case
No.54 of 2002, corresponding to T.R No. 743 of 2018, subject to the
condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner,
with a further condition that the bailors shall file an undertaking in the
learned Court below that the petitioner shall remain present on the date
of hearing of this case.
10. Accordingly, I.A No. 6535 of 2021 stands allowed and is
accordingly disposed of.
Criminal Revision No.290 of 2020
11. Admit.
12. Issue notice.
13. Lower Court Records has already been received.
14. Accordingly, put up this case after six months.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Raja/-
