Sanjoy Alias Sanjay Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 24 January, 2017

[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjoy Alias Sanjay Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 24 January, 2017

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 409, 109, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Spl. Case no. 31 of 2013-Vigil. 30/2013, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi.

The allegation against the petitioner, in short, as mentioned in the F.I.R., is that the petitioner being the Director of Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (in short to be referred as "JREDA"), has assigned the work of solar electrification of 80 villages in the State of Jharkhand to one private agency instead of M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. While allotting the said work, no permission was sought from the government, although the said work was to the tune of more than Rs.10 crores. It is further alleged that according to the JREDA, the said work was given to the M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. through its business associates namely M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, a fake person namely Sumeet Agarwal was put forward as authorized signatory on behalf of the M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd., who had signed the agreement and in the said agreement, the petitioner had also signed. The said agreement was purportedly executed on dated 24.01.2006 on an stamp paper, which was purchased on 11.03.2006 and therefore, the agreement is said to be a back dated one. It was subsequently disclosed by M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. that there was no such person named Sumeet Agarwal in the said company. It is also alleged that one Mr. V.P. Mathur, the then General Manager of M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. clarified that the said company has not done any work pursuant to the said contract. He also denied to have received any payment in relation to the contract in question. It is further alleged that M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. has never signed any agreement with M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad but the 2 payment was made by the JREDA to M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad. It is also alleged that pursuant to the work order dated 19.01.2006, sub-letting the same to M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd is against the guidelines of the CVC as the said agency was neither concerned with the said work nor connected with M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner has worked as Director, JREDA on two occasions; firstly from November, 2004 to 10th April, 2006 and then again from September, 2008 to September, 2009. It is further submitted that after obtaining the orders from the Government, a letter of intent dated 25th December, 2005 was issued to M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. confirming that it has been selected as the turnkey supplier and the said company should inform JREDA regarding their logistics. The letter of intent was accepted by M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. through the letter of its General Manager dated 19th January, 2006 and he requested that the company may be allowed to take one M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad as their local representatives. M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. had confirmed that it will accept the order but since time period is very short and the area of work being extremely difficult, it should be allowed to take assistance from its local business associates i.e. M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd. The said request was accepted considering the prevailing circumstances in the villages of the State of Jharkhand and also due to the fact that all the big companies used to have their own business associates. The time available to execute the project was extremely short i.e. less than two and half months. If the payment was made to M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. and then from M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. to M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd., it would have been impossible to convince them to take up this project. Moreover, there was no gain by not singing the agreement when JREDA had already accepted the request of M/s. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. in its letter dated 19th January, 2006. The agreement, however, was a mere formality.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has taken all the steps with the prior approval of the appropriate authorities of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, he should not be held responsible for making the payment to M/s. PPS Enviro 3 Power Pvt. Ltd. directly. The petitioner has followed all the procedures, rules and regulations and the Remote Village Electrification (RVE) project was in fact one of the success stories of the State of Jharkhand due to the effort of the petitioner as the Director of JREDA. The Anti-Corruption Bureau has implicated him in the present case without properly carrying out the investigation. The petitioner has made all the payments to M/s. PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd. after obtaining the orders from the appropriate authorities. It is also submitted that major payment has been made by his successor i.e. co-accused S.H.E. Kazmi. No offence is made out under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477 (A) of I.P.C. Moreover, the offences under Sections 406/409/419/ 420/ 434/ 424/ 201 and 120(B) of I.P.C. and also under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act are also not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Bhagirathsinh, s/o Mahipat Singh Judeja reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284 submits that since the charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted, there is no justification in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody any further. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and suffering from an ailment "cerebral atrophy". He has voluntarily surrendered before the learned court below on 11.08.2016 and since then he is in judicial custody. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for regular bail may be considered sympathetically.

Learned counsel appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that the petitioner is the main accused in this case, who being the Director of JREDA, Ranchi in violation of government orders, instead of assigning the work of the Solar Electrification in 80 villages to M/s. Rajasthan Electronics Instruments Limited, Jaipur, a Public Sector Company, had assigned the said work to a private agency namely M/s. PPS Enviro Power (P) Ltd, Hyderabad. The petitioner along with other accused persons did it without obtaining any approval from the Government. The petitioner, while he was posted as Director in JREDA under Rural Electrification Scheme, an agreement was executed on 24.01.2006 with M/s. Rajasthan Electronics Instruments Limited, Jaipur for supply of Solar lamps, Street lights, Water heater, Bio- Gas etc. The non-judicial stamp of the said agreement was purchased on dated 16.03.2006 by JREDA but on 24.01.2006, the petitioner and one Sumit Agarwal signed the agreement on behalf of M/s. Rajasthan 4 Electronics Instruments Limited, Jaipur. However, M/s. Rajasthan Electronics Instruments Limited, Jaipur has clarified that no such person was working in the said company, which shows that the said agreement was forged and back-dated. It is further submitted that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons, under a criminal conspiracy, executed the said agreement for supply of the materials worth about Rs.10(Ten) Crores. The said forged agreement was signed between JREDA and M/s. Rajasthan Electronics Instruments Limited, Jaipur but the amount of Rs.65 lacs was paid to the said private agency M/s. PPS Enviro Power (P) Ltd, Hydrabad. The petitioner has signed the cheques of the said amount. It is further submitted that the officers were sent to Jaipur to verify the agreement dated 24.01.2006, which was executed between JREDA and M/s. Rajasthan Electronics Instruments Limited through Sumit Agarwal and after the enquiry and verification, M/s. Rajasthan Electronics Instruments Limited clarified that the company has not signed any such agreement. The petitioner was having knowledge of the agreement but concealed the proper fact in connivance with the other accused persons of JREDA. The petitioner in conspiracy with other accused persons was instrumental in making illegal payments to M/s PPS Enviro Power (P) Ltd, Hydrabad by abusing his official position and facilitated M/s. PPS Enviro (P) Ltd with wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss of Crores of rupees to the State Exchequer. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Anti- Corruption Bureau that the petitioner being the Director of JREDA at the relevant time also embezzled an amount of Rs.24,67,12,500/- with regard to installation of solar lanterns. However, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau approached the office to seize the file of the purchase of solar lanterns, it was informed by the present Director, JREDA that the said file is missing from the records, for which a separate F.I.R. i.e. Doranda P.S. Case no. 163 of 2016 has been lodged. The said work relating to purchase of solar lanterns was to be allotted to the L1 bidder but the petitioner, misusing his official position, allotted the said work to such 14 companies, which did not even exist or recognized by the Government. In fact, the said works were allotted to the shops, which used to deal in sweets, wire, etc. Even those solar lanterns which were actually supplied, were of such inferior quality that those stopped working within six months from the date of supply, for which the local villagers as well as the concerned officers also made complaints to the Director, JREDA. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a named accused and there are serious charges against him and ample evidence is available on record against him, which 5 shows that he has committed embezzlement of Government fund, details of which have been explained in the F.I.R. as well as in the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that due to delayed appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial court, the trial of the case was split up and one co-accused namely Baneshwar Mahto, the then Project Director of JREDA, has already been convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 23.01.2016. Learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau relying upon the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. no. 2741 of 2014 submits that the said criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was evading his arrest. The petitioner neither co-operated with the Anti-Corruption Bureau nor appeared before the learned trial court on time. In view of the said facts, the petitioner may not be granted the privilege of bail at this stage.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is, hereby, rejected.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court