Pramod Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Thr Cbi on 19 March, 2012

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pramod Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Thr Cbi on 19 March, 2012

Bench: Jaya Roy

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          A.B.A. No. 184 of 2012
                                      ---
             Pramod Kumar Singh             ...... .....Petitioner
                                      --Versus--
             The State of Jharkhand, through C.B.I...Opposite Party
                                      ---
             CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
                                      ---
             For the Petitioner    : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
             For the State(CBI)    : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan (CBI)
                                      ---
03/ 19.03.2012

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in this case registered under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad.

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. as he is the proprietor of M/s P.K.S. & Co., Billiam Town, B. Deoghar (Jharkhand).

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Government Contractor. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioner is that some of the invoices, which were submitted by him, were found to be forged and fake. It is also submitted that the inspection was made by the higher authority and the work was found to be satisfactory and even the Audit Team, on physical spot verification, did not find any irregularity and there is no allegation of wrong measurement in the Measurement Book, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case.

Counsel for the C.B.I., Mr. Mokhtar Khan has submitted that the petitioner is a contractor and under the agreement with the Road Construction Department, Jamtara, it was required to procure bitumen from the oil companies of Government of India for using the same in the work in question and the petitioner was required to submit the document in proof of procurement of bitumen from the oil companies of the Government of India as mentioned in the agreement made between them. Mr. Khan has further submitted that the present petitioner, who is the contractor, has submitted 10(ten) bitumen invoices showing the procurement of bitumen, 7(seven) invoices of the bitumen valued Rs.9,59,230/- were not actually issued by the I.O.C.L., Haldia, though it is shown that the same were issued from I.O.C.L., Haltia. Thus, all these false and fabricated invoices were submitted by the petitioner. He has further submitted that in similar nature of case of Manish Kumar, who is an Assistant Engineer, who approved the fake invoices submitted by the Contractors, Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected his regular bail application in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1034/2012 and passed following order:

"We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

We request the learned trial court to proceed with the trial and in case the material witnesses are examined, the petitioner may revive the bail application.

With these observation, the special leave petition is disposed of."

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case.

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the petitioner was produced invoices amounting to Rs.9,59,230/-, which were found false and fabricated, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is, hereby, rejected .

(JAYA ROY, J.) SI/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court