Jharkhand High Court
Hare Krishna Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 December, 2012
Author: Jaya Roy
Bench: Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No 3958 of 2012
Hare Krishna Prasad ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party.
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
----
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Kalyan Roy & R.M.Singh,
Advocates
For the State : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan (A.S.G.I)
-------
04/14.12.2012Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the C.B.I.
2. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 420/ 467/468/471/and 120B of the I.P.C. and under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court in A.B.A. No. 4208 of 2011 vide order dated 05.03.2012.
4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not named in the F.I.R. and his name has been added in the charge sheet dated 30.08.2011 i.e. after more than a year.
5. It is submitted that the allegation in the charge sheet that the petitioner is authorized by one Amit Dhar as a transporter to lift the bitumen is incorrect. The signature of the petitioner allegedly put on the authority card valid from 12.03.2007 to 31.03.2007 and signed by the I.O.C. on 12.03.2007, is false and forged by Manas Kumar Paul. This fact was brought to the knowledge of C.B.I. but no step was taken to verify the signature by the C.B.I. Further the authority card signed by the I.O.C. Officials on 12.03.2007 was in the name of "M/S Maa Usha Construction" instead of "M/S Maa Usha Consortium" and the said defect was cured on 19.03.2007 by the officials of the I.O.C. by putting their initial. After the aforesaid correction, a fresh D.O. Letter was issued by the I.O.C. in the name of "M/S Maa Usha Consortium" and the validity period was also enhanced from 2 A.B.A. No 3958 of 2012 12.03.2007 to 30.04.2007. It transpires from the D.O. Letter issued on 19.03.2007 that the same was received by Manas Kumar Paul and not by this petitioner. As such the question of any forgery or cheating at the instance of this petitioner does not arise because the authority card is a forged and fabricated document.
6. It is further submitted that from the material in the charge sheet that a total amount of Rs.54,15,955/- (Fifty four lacs fifteen thousand nine hundred and fifty five only) was paid to the contractor M/S Maa Usha Consortium by three different cheques and none of the amount of the cheque has been paid to the petitioner. Further, out of the aforesaid amount about Rs.36,75,467/- (Thirty six lacs seventy five thousand four hundred sixty seven only) is the value of the 142.08 MT of bitumen utilized in the work. None of the amount has been paid to or received by this petitioner. It is further submitted that the alleged invoices contained the signatures of the government officials and the contractor with dates but the signature of the petitioner on the alleged invoices, no date of the signature is mentioned which creates a doubt on the genuineness of the signature of the petitioner.
7. Mr. Kalyan Roy, lastly has contended that the other co- accused moved before this Court in A.B.A. No. 83 of 2012 which was disposed of with the observation that if the co-accused deposits one forth of the amount involved, his application for bail shall be considered by the trial court, vide order dated 13.01.2012 passed by another bench of this Court. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the co-accused Shiv Shankar Choudhary on the deposit of one forth amount, has been granted bail by the trial court.
8. The learned counsel for C.B.I has submitted that earlier the petitioner has filed an application for anticipatory bail i.e. A.B.A. No.4208 of 2011 and after hearing the counsel of the petitioner and the counsel of the C.B.I. at length when this court was going to dismiss the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, the counsel of the petitioner sought permission for withdrawal of the 3 A.B.A. No 3958 of 2012 said application and the said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 5.3.2012.
9. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, the Counsel of the C.B.I. has further contended that he has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the earlier application. In the investigation it has come that on the basis of the authority letter issued by the Executive Engineer, R.C.D, Jamtara and after being authorized by Amit Dhar (Contractor of M/s Maa Usha Consortium, Jamtara), Hare Krishna Prasad as Authorized Representative of M/S Maa Usha Consortium obtained the authority letter from the Divisional Office, IOCL, Dhanbad for lifting the bitumen on behalf of Amit Dhar From IOCL. But the petitioner did not lift any bitumen from IOCL, Haldia and dishonestly and fraudulently signed on all 17 fake/forged invoices of the bitumen. Thus, accused petitioner Hare Krishna Prasad being authorized representative of M/S Maa Usha Consortium entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and in pursuance thereof, falsely signed and certified these fake forged invoices as genuine, which were submitted by Amit Dhar. Investigation has further disclosed that in the contract work, all 17 fake forged bitumen invoices submitted by the contractor bear the signatures of the said accused petitioner Hare Krishna Prasad.
10. Mr. Khan has further submitted that for executing the Road work in question, the contractor was required to make procurement of appropriate quantity of bitumen of desired grade and to submit proof showing such procurement. For the aforesaid work in question altogether 17 bitumen invoices purportedly issued from IOCL, Haldia were submitted by the contractor Amit Dhar to the Deptt. Investigation has also disclosed that all such 17 invoices were fake as the same were not issued from IOCL, Haldia and no bitumen against these invoices were ever sold to M/s Maa Usha Consortium. The concerned co-accused entered into criminal conspiracy with the contractor and accused petitioner Hare Krishna Prasad, the authorized representative of the firm who by abusing his official position, falsely certified the fake 4 A.B.A. No 3958 of 2012 bitumen invoices. All 17 invoices in question through which required quantity of bitumen was shown to have been utilized in the execution of the work though no bitumen against those bitumen invoices was ever purchased.
11. Mr. Khan has further contended that after thorough investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner under Sections 420/468/471/and 120B of the I.P.C. and under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act.1988.
12. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and the materials on record, I find the petitioner is the person who was authorized by Amit Dhar Contractor for lifting bitumen from IOCL but he did not lift any bitumen from IOCL, Haldia and signed on all 17 fake and forged bitumen invoices certifying the supply of bitumen against such invoices. Thus, the present petitioner entered into the criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and falsely certified the fake and forged invoices as genuine. Furthermore, counsel of the petitioner has not raised any new grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the second application for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Jaya Roy, J.) Anit