'Appears To Be A Big Scam': MP High Court Denies Bail To Janpad Panchayat CEO For Allegedly Embezzling Crores Of Rupees Under Vivah Sahayata Yojna

Further investigation is still going on regarding role of other culprits. Incidentally, other two accused namely Yogendra Sharma and Hemant Sahu were neither Govt. employees nor were contractual employees in any manner but were working at the instance of applicant prima facie, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that some more members must be involved in commission of offence. It appears to be a big scam where crores of rupees were siphoned off on the pretext of giving benefit of विवाह सहायता योजना to poor construction workers.

Justice Anand Pathak was dealing with the bail application wherein the Applicant was accused for offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC & under Section 7,13(1) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

As per the prosecution story, the Applicant, working in the capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Sironj, misused his official position and embezzled an amount of Rs. 30,68,37,000/- on pretext of 6021 marriages allegedly conducted by members of unorganized labour class under Vivah Sahayata Yojna. The said scheme, promulgated by State Government through Karmkar Kalyan Mandal (Workers Welfare Board), provides for financial assistance, after due verification, to the tune of Rs. 51,000/- to every member of unorganized labour between age group of 18 to 60 who undergoes marriage.

The Applicant submitted that only 18 families were pointed out to be beneficiaries and not a single penny was transferred to his account. He added that earlier, some departmental enquiries were made but no fingers were pointed at his role. He further argued that he was instrumental in plugging the gap, if any, by asking for affidavit of bride and bridegroom side to maintain transparency. He pointed out to the Court that chargesheet had already been filed in the case and therefore, chance of tampering with evidence/witness was remote. He assured the Court that he would cooperate with the trial and on the said grounds, he prayed for grant of bail.

Opposing the application, the State submitted that the chargesheet clearly indicated discrepancies on the part of the Applicant with respect to the implementation of the scheme. The State further argued that considering the serious nature of allegations, the fact that Applicant may tamper with evidence/witness and the amount embezzled by him, no case for bail was made out and hence the application ought to be dismissed.

Examining the submissions of the parties and documents on record, the Court observed that considering the lockdown periods between March 2020 and May 2021, it was highly unlikely that the Applicant would have facilitated marriage of more than 6,000 persons in families of construction workers. The Court further noted that there were many beneficiaries who were not even registered in portal and yet they received benefits-

Perusal of contents of FIR / narration in charge-sheet indicates that applicant facilitated marriage of more than 6,000 persons in families of construction workers during the period April 2020 to May, 2021 but incidentally, said period was of lock-downs at major portion of time, therefore, occurrence of such large number of marriages in strict lock- down period itself creates doubt. Beside that, many beneficiaries were those who were not entitled for the same because of the fact that no member was going to be married during that period in their families nor many construction workers were registered at all at the portal and still got the benefits.

The Court concluded that considering the nature of allegations, official position of the Applicant and the fact that prosecution witnesses, majority of whom would be vulnerable witnesses are to be examined before the trial court, possibility of tampering with evidence/witness by the Applicant could not be ruled out. The Court further noted that the allegations were serious in nature, having wider ramifications.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the application was without merit and accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Case Title: SHOBIT TRIPATHI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 157

Click Here To Read/Download Order