Jharkhand High Court
Raja Ram Joshi @ Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ ... vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I. .... ... on 17 May, 2019
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.10317 of 2018
------
Raja Ram Joshi @ Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju @ Rajkumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Sharma .... .... Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I. .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Special P.P.
------
Order No.10 Dated- 17.05.2019
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with RC Case No.45(A)/1996-PAT (S) registered under sections 109, 120(B), 409, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474 & 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is alleged that the public servants in criminal conspiracy with accused suppliers including the petitioner and other accused persons have cheated the Government Exchequer of the then Government of Bihar and have fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawn a sum of Rs.34,91,54,844/- on the basis of forged allotment letters, fake bills, supply bills and false certificates causing wrongful gain to themselves and causing wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer. The allegation against the petitioner is that M/s. Rajendra Prasad Sharma is a proprietorship concern of the petitioner- whose real name is Rajaram Tatloi but he often impersonates himself to be Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma and the allegation against the said proprietary firm of the petitioner is that it has raised various false bills, processed vide several CNC bills showing purported transportation of Yellow Maize from AHD units of Ranchi and Chaibasa to the AHD units of Dumka during the material period and has received Rs.47,73,450/- as payment in cash for purported transport of feed during the period 1992-93. It is also alleged that the petitioner has received the said amount in cash from S.B.I. Dumka. It is further alleged that the petitioner has raised bills showing use of 77 vehicles of different registration numbers in the transportation of feed from different places under Regional Director, AHD Dumka. There is further allegation that the vehicle shown to have been deployed by the firm of the petitioner for the aforesaid transportation were found to be the registration numbers of two wheelers like Bajaj Scooter, Priya Scooter, Rajdoot Motorcycle, Yezdi Motorcycle, Enfield Motorcycle, Moped, Tractor, Car(non-commercial) and Ambassador Car (Govt. Vehicle) etc. It is further alleged that the entire Dumka Region of AHD comprising of five districts namely Dumka, Sahebganj, Godda, Deoghar and Pakur were not having any cattle farm, piggery farm or poultry farm. Thus, the question of animal feeding does not arise. It is further alleged that though the case was instituted on 15.04.1996 yet the petitioner did not co-operate during the investigation of the case and absconded and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him showing him to be an absconder on 10.10.2001 and he remained absconded and consequent upon his conviction in RC Case No.64(A)/1-1996, he was remanded in this case on 11.10.2018 but charge has not yet been framed against him. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been wrongly remanded in this case because in internal page-52- Charge-sheet, it has been mentioned that Rajendra Prasad Sharma is a non-existent person and is actually Rajaram Tatloi who impersonated himself as Rajendra Prasad Sharma. It is further submitted that there is no material in the record in support of the allegations made against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner is an old person aged about 67 years and the trial court has passed adverse remarks regarding the I.O. of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has not received any money whatsoever. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having fraudulently withdrawn Rs.47,73,450/- from government exchequer through cash payment from bank on the basis of forged CNC bills without supplying any material whatsoever to the AHD units of Dumka and the petitioner has committed the said transactions in the pseudo name of Rajendra Prasad Sharma and during the course of execution of process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. it could be ascertained that the petitioner is Rajaram Tatloi is the person who operated under the pseudo name of Rajendra Prasad Sharma and thus the person who has put signature on the CNC bills by which the fraudulent withdrawals have been made from the Government Exchequer through the said CNC bills is the same person Raja Ram Tatloi and he used several pseudo names like Raja Ram Joshi @ Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju @ Rajkumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Sharma and he was also operating under the pseudo firms like M/s Rajaram Tatloi, Dumka also and the said pseudo firm which was also operated by the petitioner in the name and style of M/s Rajaram Tatloi has also received a fraudulent cash amount of Rs.1,01,250/-. It is next submitted that the petitioner has already been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three and half years each in R.C. Case No.38A of 1996 and 64A of 1996 and the two sentences in those two cases are to run consecutively and as the petitioner was absconding for more than twenty four years, hence, there is every chance of his fleeing away once he is admitted to bail and as the charge has not yet framed at this stage, the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and his conduct of absconding for over two decades, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh-