Vadhjibhai vs State

1. This is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant who came to be arrested in connection with CR No. I-63 of 2009 registered at Thara Police Station, Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 419 of the IPC.

2. Mr Tejas M Barot, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person. He is approximately aged about 82 years and considering the role attributed to him as reflected in the FIR and the police papers, he deserves to be enlarged on bail as prayed for in the application. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that even the role of the applicant who was working as Sarpanch was limited and the main person is the Talati who has forged the documents and not made payment of the amount to the labourers. The applicant has not misappropriated the amount as alleged in the complaint and he has been made the scapegoat with a view to put him behind the bars and therefore, the prayer as set out in the application be granted.

3. Mr DC Sejpal, learned APP for the State, while opposing the bail application, submitted that considering role attributed to the applicant as can be seen from the FIR, police papers, statement of Bhanuprasad Shankarlal and on perusal of the muster roll and the entries made therein in the column payment of the labourers , thumb impression or the signature of labourers was not obtained and the amount in question which was required to be paid to the labourers was misappropriated by the present applicant and Talati. Thus, considering the role of the applicant and the manner in which the applicant has duped poor labourers, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicant and the application deserves to be rejected out of hand.

4. I have heard Mr Tejas M Barot, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr DC Sejpal, learned APP for the State at length and in great detail. I have considered the statement of Bhanuprasad Shankarlal, the register which has been maintained for the work which was entrusted under the Indira Aavas Yojna and the entries made therein in the remarks column. In the remarks column, in large number of cases, the names of the labourers are mentioned twice. On perusal of the muster roll for payment of the labourers, the payment was required to be made to the labourers and the signature of the labourer or thumb impression was required to be obtained in the muster roll as having received the amount. Though the amount in question has been shown to have been paid to the labourers in column No.27, but the signature or the thumb impression of the labourer was not obtained. Thus, the amount has not gone to the labourers even though the work for the completion of Shirvada Kashipura road was undertaken. Thus, the amount which is mentioned in the muster roll has not gone to the labourers and the same was misappropriated. Considering the role attributed to the applicant and the manner in which the labourers are deprived of their legitimate claim and the manner in which the amount is misappropriated by the applicant in tandem with Talati cum Mantri cannot be overlooked by this Court. Considering the role attributed to the applicant, provisions of Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 419 of the IPC, quantum of punishment and the gravity of the offence, the applicant in my view is not entitled to claim the discretionary relief as prayed for in the application.

5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application and the same is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.

[H.B.ANTANI, J.] mrpandya Top