Supreme Court Grants Bail To Executive Engineer Accused Of Forging Signatures Of Pump Sets' Beneficiaries

Interestingly, through an order dated June 15, 2020 the High Court noting the Department’s immediate order upon registration of the FIR, with an unusual haste through which it had allowed the petitioner to take unilateral charge had remarked that "something is rotten in Denmark".

“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is enjoying interim protection for a period of more than last three years and that the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation, we are inclined to allow the petition.”, a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed in the matter.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for the petitioner and Senior AAG Nalin Kohli appeared for the State.

The petitioner-accused was charged with offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 408 ,409, 406, 506 of the IPC.

While stating that he had a limited role in the selection of beneficiaries of the Scheme for distribution of pump sets had submitted that it is the District Level Selection Committee (for short DLSC), which ultimately selects the beneficiaries. Further, that it is from the approved list of the DLSC that installation of the Shallow Tube Well (for short STW) and construction of water tank by the beneficiaries would be done.

The State vehemently opposing the grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court contended that the allegations made in the FIR are corroborated by the statements recorded of the 27 beneficiaries.

In the matter, the informant also opposing the prayer of the petitioner had submitted that after lodging of the FIR, vide the same order dated March 17, 2020, the petitioner was given charge of the post of Executive Engineer at Gauripur, Dhubri.

However, the petitioner had contended that the allegations made were based on documents and all such documents having been seized, custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary, especially when the statements have already been recorded along with the fact that he is a Government servant.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi rejecting the contention of the petitioner-accused had noted, “…materials in the Case Diary, including the statements of the beneficiaries, more specifically, the beneficiaries named in the FIR, suggest involvement of the petitioner in the case. Further, though the selection of the beneficiaries is said to be done by the DLSC, the petitioner is very much a part of the said Committee as the Member Secretary as would be revealed from Annexure-XII to the Guideline. In any case, the allegation is not of depriving a deserving candidate from being named as a beneficiary but of forging the signature of the beneficiaries to show as if that they have received the pump sets. The statements of the contractors also implicate the petitioner”.

Observing the Department’s order, the bench had noted, “Such action on the part of the Department does not appear to be in tune with the due process of law. The further letter of the Director of Agriculture Department dated June 9, 2020 to the Superintendent of Police not to take action in a criminal case is not at all warranted as the same amounts to transgressing the jurisdiction and independence of the investigating agency. All these aspects leave no other option to the Court but to assume highhandedness and an attempt to influence and hamper proper investigation”.

Accordingly, while allowing the petition, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused subject to his executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/-.

Cause Title: Rekib Ahmed v State of Assam

Click here to read/download the Order