Rajkumar Singh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application, finding that evidence of forgery and embezzlement of government money was available against the applicants. The Court noted that the money was deposited into the personal accounts of the applicants and their relatives. While acknowledging the applicants' deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- into the Zila Panchayat account, the Court held that this alone was not sufficient grounds for granting bail. The Court also emphasized that the applicants had remained absconding for a prolonged period of eight months, and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated against them, leading to their eventual arrest. Considering the political clout and economic status of the applicants, the Court concluded that there was a likelihood of them influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. Therefore, at this stage, it was deemed inappropriate to release the applicants on bail. The operative direction was the dismissal of the bail application.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Rajkumar Singh (then Sarpanch) and Kamlesh Sahu (then Secretary) of Gram Panchayat Menwarakalan. A complaint was lodged on January 5, 2023, alleging that the applicants withdrew funds allotted by the State Government for rural development/MANREGA without conducting any work. They are accused of embezzling public money and preparing forged bills totaling Rs. 1,31,97,000/-. The applicants claim innocence, attributing the charges to political rivalry, and state that all work was completed under government schemes, with competition certificates issued. They also claim to have deposited Rs. 1,00,00,000/- into the Zila Panchayat account. The prosecution contends that an inquiry report submitted on December 26, 2022, indicated forgery, with a seized GST number for Santosh Traders found to be false. The applicants allegedly remained absconding for eight months, leading to proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. before their arrest and judicial custody on September 8, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of embezzlement of public funds and forgery. The applicants' arguments are: The applicants are innocent and falsely implicated due to political rivalry. There is no direct evidence against them, and the case relies solely on circumstantial evidence. All government-funded work was completed, and competition certificates were issued. No evidence of forgery or fraudulent practice exists, and thus, no offense under the cited Indian Penal Code sections is made out. The trial is likely to be lengthy, and the applicants have already deposited a significant amount (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-) towards the disputed sum. The State's arguments are: An inquiry committee report confirmed forgery and embezzlement. The GST number of a supplier (Santosh Traders) was found to be false, indicating fraudulent practices. The applicants remained absconding for eight months, necessitating proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. before their arrest. Money was allegedly deposited into the personal accounts of the applicants and their relatives. Releasing the applicants on bail could lead to influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, given their political clout and the impact of defalcating public money on society.