Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Mohan Prasad vs The Union Of India Through ... on 7 January, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 8954 of 2019
Dr. Mohan Prasad ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through Superintendent of Police, CBI
... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Adv.
For the CBI : Mrs. Neetu Sinha, Spl. PP.
02 / 07.01.2020Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with CBI/ S.P.E./A.C.B. Dhanbad P.S. case no. R.C. 8(A)/2016-D registered under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as head of Business Development and Industrial Liaison (BDIL)/ Chief Scientist, CIMFR, Dhanbad in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, manipulated the rate of interest in default of payment of the royalty from 18% per annum to 12% per annum in the agreement dated 18.10.2006 executed for development of SCSR 60 minutes and 10 minutes duration to favour M/s Suparna Chemicals Ltd. and though he was knowing very well that prior approval of Director, CIMFT (erstwhile CMRI) was required to make any amendment in the agreement, even then, he willfully ignored the same and dishonestly and fraudulently under criminal conspiracy acted on the advice of co-accused N. Sahay and the petitioner did not take any step for collection of huge outstanding royalty from M/s Suparna Chemicals Ltd. resulting into wrongful loss to CMRI (which is now known as CIMFR) of Rs. 85,02,228/-. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner will ensure that Rs. 85,02,228/- is deposited in the trial court without prejudice to his defence subject to final decision in the case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has all along co- operated with the investigation of the case and the CBI did not feel it necessary to arrest the petitioner and even charge sheet has been submitted in the case and the petitioner also undertakes not to tamper with the evidence in the case and no fruitful purpose would be served if the petitioner is denied the privilege of anticipatory bail and co-accused with similar allegations have already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this court vide orders dated 23.10.19, 25.10.19, 08.11.19 and 26.11.19 passed in ABA nos. 7557 of 2019, 7606 of 2019, 7788 of 2019 and 7605 of 2019 respectively, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Spl. PP for the CBI opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of four months from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on satisfying the court concerned that a sum of Rs. 85,02,228/- has been deposited in the trial court by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the Registrar, Civil Court, Dhanbad and in case of non-depositing of the said amount of Rs. 85,02,228/- by the co-accused, the petitioner shall be released on bail on depositing a sum of Rs. 85,02,228/- in the trial court by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the Registrar, Civil Court, Dhanbad and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge CBI cum Additional Sessions Judge, XI, Dhanbad in connection with CBI/ S.P.E./A.C.B. Dhanbad P.S. case no. R.C. 8(A)/2016-D subject to the condition that the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence in the case and will submit his mobile number and photocopy of Aadhar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner, learned court below is directed to direct the Registrar, Civil Court, Dhanbad to invest the said amount in Fixed Deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of five years with auto renewal clause.
It is made clear that at the time of the conclusion of the trial, the trial court will pass appropriate order regarding the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner in the trial court.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-