Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2013
Author: Jaya Roy
Bench: Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2314 of 2012
----
Manoj Kumar Bhagat ....... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Srivastava, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, (A.S.G.I.)
------
11/ 18.01.2013. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the C.B.I.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for his anticipatory bail for the second time as the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2012 in A.B.A. No. 4337 of 3011 and thereafter again the petitioner filed an interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 607 of 2012 in which he had prayed for modification of the aforesaid order as he was ready to deposit the amount in question and also for granting anticipatory bail to him after permitting him to deposit the amount. After hearing the parties, the said interlocutory application No. I.A. No. 607 of 2012 was also rejected by this Court by the order dated 08.05.2012.
3. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471/ of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12(2) read with 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act and he is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 08 (A) 2010 ®, now pending in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I. Cum Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge Ist, Dhanbad.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a registered Civil Contractor. It is further contended that in road Construction Department, under Jharkhand Public works Department, (P.W.D.) any contractor company who gets the contract work for more than Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) is required to purchase Bitumen from any PSUs and against the purchase of Bitumen, after submitting the bills showing the quality & price of the Bitumen, payment is being made by the executive engineer of the department to 2 A.B.A. No. 2314 of 2012 the contractor company. In the instant case the only company who get the contact work for more than Rs.10,00,000/- was M/s P.K.S. & Co. who submitted false & fabricated bills which were dishonestly passed by the then executive engineer Shri Prakash Chandra Singh and hence F.I.R. has been ordered to be lodged against (1) Prakash Chandra Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Jamtara (2) M/s P.K.S. & Co. Billiam Town, B. Deoghar, Jharkhand & against the unknown officials of the road construction department, Ranchi on amount of fake payment made to M/s P.K.S. & Co., B Deoghar by the then Executive Engineer Sri prakash Chandra Singh for submission of false & Fabricated bills by the aforesaid M/s P.K.S. & Co, B. Deoghar.
5. It is further contended that while the petitioner busy with his contract work at Chittranjan Locomotive Works, Chittranjan, District Burdwan, he received information regarding tenders floated by Jharkhand public works department Govt. of Jharkhand Jamtara with regard to surface renewal of Jama- Jamtara- Rupnarayanpur Road in KM- 97(8) and (102) for which the estimated cost was Rs.7,58,290=00 and another tender floated by the J.P.W. Department which was for special repair to bridge K. Culverts to J.K.L Road for which the estimated cost was Rs.4,07,108=00. After going through the terms and conditions of the above mentioned tenders, the petitioner desired and opted to do the contract work as floated by the J.P.W. Department and he applied for the aforesaid tender works and after verified by the department and the works were ordered to be allotted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that after the agreement the petitioner started the work as per the specification and after the contract work being done by the petitioner, the same was physically verified by the officials of the department and having fully satisfied with the contract work done by the petitioner, full payment of the contract work was made to him after due approval of the then Superintendent Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted to Chittaranjan Locomotive Work's. It is further contended that the petitioner is innocent and no illegality has ever been found against the work done by him.
6. Mr. Mokhtar Khan appearing for the C.B.I. has filed a counter 3 A.B.A. No. 2314 of 2012 affidavit in this case and he has submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but during the course of investigation sufficient evidence has been collected to prove the charges leveled against him and he was charge sheeted and cognizance has been taken against him.
7. Mr. Khan has submitted that in the year 2009 a P.I.L. i.e. W.P. (PIL) No. 803 of 2009 was filed before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and in pursuance to the order dt. 30.06.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Court in Writ petition (PIL) No. 803 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry, vide No. PE 03 (A)/ 09 (R) was taken up into the alleged large scale irregularities committed by the Engineers of the Road Construction department Government of Jharkhand, contractors and other persons in the matter of purported procurement of Bitumen for construction of roads by private contractors. After which the instant F.I.R. was lodged on 18.03.2010.
7. Mr. Khan has further submitted that it has come in the investigation the petitioner in conspiracy with the other accused persons filed an affidavit mentioning therein that he was entrusted with some work in the year 2003-2004 vide Agreement No. 27F/2003-04 and 15F/2004-05 for Jama, Jamtara Road and Rupnarayanpur Road in 97 and 102 K.M. But the work could not be completed, therefore, some drums of bitumen remained unused. He further mentioned that out of the remaining bitumen drums he had given 21 drums of bitumen to M/s P.K.S. & company. Later on during investigation IOCL informed that customer in the name of the petitioner did not exist. Thus, he dishonestly submitted affidavit mentioning incorrect facts to facilitate payment to the accused contractor on the basis of bogus claim for which causing a great loss to the government revenue.
8. Mr. Khan has further submitted that in similar type of case the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the regular bail of the Assistant Engineer who has approved the fake invoices submitted for the bitumen even after remaining in the custody for a one year i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 1034 of 2012 Manish Kumar - Vrs- C.B.I. Vide order dated 02.03.2012.
9. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and 4 A.B.A. No. 2314 of 2012 considering the fact that the earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected and there is direct allegation against the petitioner and charge sheet has been submitted against him and furthermore, no new grounds have been taken, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner for the second time is rejected.
(Jaya Roy, J.) SI