Jharkhand High Court
Satyan Kasturi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 10 February, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4057 of 2018
------
Satyan Kasturi ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Department, Ranchi
... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the A.C.B. : Mr. T.N. Verma, Spl. P.P.
For the Intervener : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
------
Order No.14 Dated- 10.02.2020
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 of 2013 (Special Case No. 31 of 2013) registered under sections 419/ 420/ 423/ 424/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 477A/ 409/109/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Heard the parties.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that without any work being allotted to M/s PPS Enviro Power (P) Limited, of which the petitioner is the Managing Director, the said company has received Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 8,64,01,446/-. On 08.07.2019, learned senior counsel for the petitioner prayed for time for filing the supplementary affidavit mentioning therein, as to whether the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the said amount of Rs. 8,64,01,446/- without prejudice to his defence. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and drawing attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 19.12.2019, it is submitted that the petitioner is an Australian citizen and the project of Rural Village Electrification Programme was assigned to REIL with an understanding that the company of the petitioner M/s PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd. shall be the local representative of M/s REIL. It is further alleged that M/s PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd. has received Rs. 8,64,01,446/- and hence, he cannot answer to the question of this Court whether the said amount has been received by the said company or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he will not disclosed before this Court as to on what kind of visa the petitioner has availed for entering India but it is specifically submitted that at present he is in India. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not gained any personal benefit out of this contract. It is further submitted that at paragraph no.19 of the FIR at running page no.34 it is alleged that by furnishing bank guarantee by his company instead of demand draft, a loss of Rs.25,34,832/- has been sustained by the Government and the petitioner is not ready and willing to pay Rs. 8,64,01,446/ but he is ready and willing to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.25,00,000/-. It is also submitted that the petitioner also filed Cr.M.P. No.377 of 2018 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 10.12.2014 and 04.09.2017 by which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the petitioner and vide order dated 09.02.2018 a coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed and set aside the orders by which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proclamation under Section 83 Cr.P.C. were directed. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the A.C.B opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.3120 of 2014 before this Court and the same was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.03.2015 along with Cr.M.P. No.3126 of 2014 filed by the co-accused namely A.N. Vijayraghvan for quashing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and during hearing of the said criminal miscellaneous petition the petitioner offered to surrender before the trial court and to make prayer for bail and the criminal miscellaneous petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and upon his surrendering, if bail application is filed, then it was directed that the prayer for bail be considered in the light of the submission made before the coordinate Bench of this Court in the said criminal miscellaneous petition but instead of surrendering before the trial court, the petitioner has come again before this Court for the prayer of anticipatory bail. It is next submitted that the petitioner is founder and owner of the share of the company and there is allegation of misappropriation of huge amount of money and though the petitioner is not a citizen of India and he is not disclosing the details of his visa, there is every chance of his absconding if he is released on bail. It is further submitted that lots of cases are pending against this petitioner including the cases of Debt Recovery Tribunal for non-payment of debt amounting to 450 crores but the property and assets of the petitioner have not been attached. It is also submitted that the petitioner has stated before the A.C.B. that M/s PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd. is a private company and though it was specifically mentioned in the tender floated for the work that the said installing of solar electrification in 82 villages was to be awarded only to a public sector undertaking but the company of the petitioner has misappropriated the said amount hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. .
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having misappropriated several crores of rupees of government money and though the petitioner is not the citizen of India hence, he is not disclosing particulars of his visa before this Court and that several cases are pending against him including the one for recovery of RS.450 crores as well as his conduct of not surrendering before the trial court in terms of the submission made before a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.3120 of 2014, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
In view of the rejection of this anticipatory bail application, I.A. No.7012 of 2019 is disposed of being infructuous.
Gunjan- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)