Tripura High Court
Sri Dronaram Reang vs The State Of Tripura on 20 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB 59 of 2021
Sri Dronaram Reang ---------- Applicant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura -------- Respondent(s)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
For Applicant(s) : Mr. T.D.Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Mr. T.Halam, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, PP.
ORDER
20.08.2021
[1] This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) for granting pre arrest
bail to Dronaram Reang, a retired Forest Officer who is an FIR
named accused in Kanchanpur P.S. case No. 2021 KCP 037
registered under Sections 409 IPC.
[2] Factual background of the case is as under:
Accused Dronaram Reang was posted as Forest Officer
in different beat offices under Laxmi Pur forest range and Bhangmun
Forest range under the erstwhile Kanchanpur Forest Division.
During his tenure in the said forest division, in 2010-11and 2012-13
a total sum of Rs.75,67,298/- was entrusted to him as Civil
Advance(CA) under NAP Scheme of the State Government for
development of 17 Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs).
Allegation against the accused is that out of the said sum of
75,67,298/-, he actually utilized a sum of Rs.54,14,407/- for which
he submitted Utilization Certificate(UC). Rest of the amount i.e.
Rs.21,52,891/- was allegedly misappropriated by him. He could not
submit any adjustment report or Utilization Certificate for the said
amount.
[3] Having made these allegations, Suman Das, Sub-
divisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur, North Tripura lodged a
written FIR with the Officer in charge of Kanchanpur P.S. on
01/08/21which was registered as 2021 KCP/037 under Section 409
IPC and investigation of the case was taken up by police.
Apprehending arrest in the case, the accused has approached this
court by means of filing this application for granting anticipatory
bail to him.
[4] Heard Mr.T.D.Majumder, learned Sr. Advocate
appearing for the petitioner along with Mr.T.Halam, learned
advocate. Also heard Mr.Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor,
appearing for the State respondent.
AB 59of 2021
[5] It is argued by Mr.Datta Majumder, learned
Sr.Advocate, that entrustment of the property to the accused is a sine
qua non for bringing charge under Section 409 IPC against him.
According to Mr.Datta Majumder, learned Sr.Counsel, no inference
can be drawn against the accused on the basis of the materials
available on record that the sum allegedly defalcated by him was
ever entrusted to him personally. Counsel submits that execution of
the said work for development of JFMC was a collective liability for
which the said sum of Rs.75,67,298/- was entrusted to a committee
for utilization of the same. As a beat officer, it was the duty of the
accused to supervise the execution of the work. Therefore, there was
no scope for him to utilize the said sum of money for his personal
gain. As a result, the charge under Section 409 IPC does not survive
against him. Counsel submits that in view of the FIR statement of the
informant forest officer and other materials available on record,
arrest of the petitioner is not at all necessary. Counsel, therefore,
submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on pre arrest bail on any
condition.
[6] Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP vehemently opposes the
bail application. It is contended by Mr.Datta, learned PP that the
AB 59of 2021
accused is charged with a serious economic offence punishment of
which may extend to imprisonment for life.
[7] Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of
NIMMAGADDA PRASAD vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, learned PP submits that the Apex Court
has held that economic offences need to be visited with a different
kind of approach in the matter of bail. Observation of the Apex
Court in this regard is as under:
"24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of
granting bail, the Legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the
evidence" which means the Court dealing with the
grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at
this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offence having deep
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offences affecting the economy of the country as
a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country."
[8] It is further contended by learned PP that in view of the
huge amount of money allegedly defalcated by the petitioner and the
ratio decided by the Apex Court in the said judgment, the petitioner
AB 59of 2021
in no circumstances can be enlarged on pre arrest bail. Learned PP
further submits that the petitioner misappropriated the whole sum by
crediting the same into his personal bank account. Counsel, submits
that without custodial interrogation of the petitioner it is not possible
on the part of the investigating agency to establish the crime against
the accused. Counsel, therefore, urges the court for rejecting his bail
application.
[9] Perused the entire case record including the updated
CD. The CD includes the police statement of the informant and some
other witnesses. Nowhere in their statements, the witnesses have
stated that the petitioner has utilized the said amount for his personal
gain. Even there is no material on record to infer that the petitioner
transferred any amount to his personal bank account or to the
account of any of his family members or relatives.
[10] Seen the police statement of the informant forest
officer. The case purely rests on documents and the documents are in
the custody of the informant. There is no allegation against the
petitioner that while he was in service, he ever made any kind of
interpolation in any of the documents to hide his crime. It would also
emerge from the statement of the informant that out of the sum of
Rs.75,67,298/-, the petitioner has already submitted report of
AB 59of 2021
adjustment of a sum of Rs.54,14,407/- and adjustment for the rest of
the amount is due. By this time petitioner has retired from service.
Department did not ask for any adjustment report from him before he
retired. No departmental proceeding has yet been drawn up against
the petitioner. In these circumstances, petitioner is entitled to pre
arrest bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C.
[11] Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of his arrest,
the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of
Rs.30,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the IO on the following conditions:
(i) He will appear before the IO twice in a week until
the investigation is complete.
(ii) He will not try to influence any of the witnesses of
this case directly or indirectly
(iii)He will not leave the state without prior permission
of the IO until the investigation of the case is complete
[12] In terms of the above, the bail petition stands allowed
and disposed of.
Interim application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
JUDGE
Saikat Sarma, PA
AB 59of 2021
