Jharkhand High Court
Yashoda Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Central ... on 13 September, 2017
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3409 of 2017
------
Yashoda Barnwal @ Yasoda Barnwal .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. .... .... .... Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Sundaram, Advocate
For the State : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate
------
07/13.09.2017Apprehending her arrest the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. Case No.3(A)/2015(D) registered under Sections 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the C.B.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that she is the proprietress of M/s Kashyap Marketing, Bokaro under conspiracy with the co-accused persons got issued budgetary offer and bids and submitted the said false and fake budgetary offers in the name of purported company M/s Alamdar International & M/s Memco etc. She further got prepared the fake records with a view to obtain undue favourable purchase orders in favour of her firm M/s Kashyap Marketing for executing supply orders in response to subsequent Limited Tender Enquiry Notice No.5000007923 dated 24.04.2012 of BSL, Bokaro for supplying Welding Rectifiers/Machines etc. It is further alleged that she dishonestly and fraudulently submitted price bids in the name of purported company M/s Alamdar International, Kolkata for executing supply order through her above said firm M/s Kashyap Marketing, Chas in response to above Limited Tender Enquiry of BSL, Bokaro by quoting exorbitant price i.e. above 341% of the concerned manufacturer's sale price for claiming undue profit. It is also alleged that she submitted multiple price bids under cartel formation in the name of purported company M/s Alamdar International & M/s Memco, Mumbai in response to above Limited Tender Enquiry of BSL, Bokaro for obtaining undue purchase order from BSL, Bokaro by rigging price. She thus obtained undue PO No.4510019533 dated 26.06.2012. It is further alleged that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently executed aforesaid undue purchase orders favouring her firm M/s Kashyap Marketing and supplied the Welding Rectifiers to BSL, Bokaro by procuring the same from manufacturer M/s Wearresist Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vododara, procured in the name of her group concern M/s B.M. Associates, Bokaro along with the false and fake test and guarantee certificate in the purported name of M/s Alamdar International, fabricated, got signed and submitted by her as genuine while effecting said supply and she got raised and issued related records in the name of her above firm claiming undue payment form BSL, Bokaro towards said supply of Welding Rectifiers. She also withdrew the aforesaid fraudulent proceeds by operating Bank Accounts in the name of M/s Kashyap Marketing and also transferred part of the fraudulent proceeds to the Bank Accounts of the co-accused persons. It is also alleged that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused persons has been duly benefited by way of aforesaid dishonest and fraudulent participation in Limited Tender Enquiry on the basis of false and bogus budgetary/price offers etc. by submitting multiple offers under cartel formation, fabricated, got signed and submitted by her and she used the said false and fake records as genuine for bagging undue purchase order at exorbitant price for supply of Welding Rectifiers and was liable and responsible for causing aggregate wrongful loss of Rs.3,83,933/- to BSL, Bokaro and corresponding wrongful gain to herself and the co-accused persons in respect of total 01 such PO favouring M/s Kashyap Marketing, Chas. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The C.B.I. did not feel it proper to arrest the accused person during course of investigation as the petitioner being a law abiding person cooperated with the investigation. Final form has already been submitted in this case and hence there is no scope of custodial interrogation of the petitioner. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security and to abide by any condition imposed by this court for grant of anticipatory bail, including deposit of a part of the loss amount without prejudice to her defence in the case. It is further submitted that the co- accused-Ramesh Chandra Gulati, with similar allegation, has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.8.2017 in A.B.A. No. 2134 of 2017 on the condition of depositing Rs.8 Lakh with the SAIL, Bokaro, Steel Plant Limited though the allegation against him was of causing wrongful loss of Rs. 35,94,371/-. Hence, it is submitted that on the principle of parity the petitioner be also given the same privilege.
Mr. K.P.Deo, learned counsel for the CBI, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail but concedes that co-accused-Ramesh Chandra Gulati has been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court.
Considering the submissions of the counsel and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner, named above, be admitted to anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, she shall be released on bail on depositing demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I-cum XIth District and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.3(A)/2015-D, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. In case, the petitioner deposits the said demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- in the court, it is directed that notice be issued to the Chief Executive Officer of SAIL, Bokaro, Steel Plant, Bokaro and the said demand drafts be handed over to the authorized representative of the Chief Executive Officer of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, after proper identification.
Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)