Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Pal Garg vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 16 August, 2017
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2833 of 2017
Narendra Pal Garg ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... Opp. Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMARCHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
For the CBI : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, Adv.
07 /16.08.2017Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 11(A)/2014-R registered under sections 120B read with 420/468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the CBI.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner during the period 2010 - 2014 committed offence of cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged/fake documents as genuine and criminal misconduct, and in pursuance thereof, cheated the Central University of Jharkhand (CUJ), Ranchi, by causing to it a wrongful loss of Rs.7,11,89,776/- approximately and corresponding wrongful gain to himself and co-accused persons, in the matter of award of construction works of different buildings for the Permanent Campus of CUJ, located at Cheri- Manatu, Ranchi, by abusing their official position and awarding the works at exorbitant rates to the said firms and getting executed similar type of civil and electrical works at different rates from them. There is further allegation against the petitioner that he dishonestly with the conspiracy of the co-accused persons, in the absence of master plan invited Expression of Interest (EOI) on 22.10.2011 for empanelment and award of work of construction of different buildings at the permanent campus at Cheri-Manatu, Ranchi. There is further allegation that the petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly divided the work in four different value and when the CPWD, Ranchi, requested the Vice-Chancellor of CUJ for giving the complete construction work to it for execution in the light of the UGC/Government guidelines and GFR, 2005, the said request of CPWD, Ranchi was turned down for empanelment of Contractors for works of Group "A" i.e. above Rs.25 crores. It is, further, alleged that as a part of the conspiracy to award the Building Construction work to the favoured firms, a comparative chart was prepared by the petitioner and the co-accused persons of Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi for empanelment of Group A, B, C & D contractors in which CPWD was deliberately excluded. For empanelment of Group 'A' contractors, a comparative chart was prepared by the petitioner and the other co-accused persons in which CPWD was fraudulently excluded on the ground that it charges 27.5% of the capital value of the work as agency charge because of which the cost of the project would increase by 25%. There is further allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently selected the firm M/s J.C. Enterprises, Shillong, which had not submitted the earnest money and hence, was not eligible for empanelment. The said firm had deposited an FD instead of Demand Draft which was returned with a direction to deposit the Demand Draft. However, before receipt of the said Demand Draft, the firm was empanelled. It is also alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused persons had not empanelled M/s National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. (PSU) in Group 'A' on similar ground that it did not furnish the required money. M/s Raj Construction had submitted two fake and false experience certificates purportedly issued by W & P Department, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi and Building Construction Department, Hazaribagh. As such this firm was empanelled on the basis of these fake and false certificates. There is further allegation against the petitioner that while publishing the list of empanelled firms/Govt. Departments, in the same order dated 09.01.2012, all the empanelled contractors were requested to quote their rate over the DSR -2007 for Civil/Electrical work along with rate of extra items as per list annexed. The rates were to be submitted in sealed envelope on 20.01.2012 by 03:00 pm and the same were to be opened at 03:30 pm on the same day. Investigation has further revealed that with the approval of the co-accused persons, the petitioner asked the empanelled firms to submit their rates for construction of different buildings, above Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR-2007) for all civil and electrical works. No Bill of Quantities (BOQ) was specified for the said works. It is also alleged that all the empanelled firms quoted the same rate i.e. 58% above DSR, 2007. Since all the empanelled contractors in different Group had quoted the same rate of 58% above DSR, re-tendering was not done to decide the L-1 party. The petitioner negotiated the rate and finally the lowest rate was obtained for Group 'A' @ 56%, Group 'B' @ 56%, Group 'C' @ 54% and Group 'D'@ 49%, above the DSR, 2007. It is further alleged that the lowest rate offered by the contractors after negotiation was 49% above DSR-2007 quoted by M/s B.P. Construction of Group 'D' but the work was awarded to the contractors in Group 'B' and 'C' at 7% and 5% above the L-1 rate which is a wrongful loss to the University and corresponding wrongful gain to the private parties which is calculated and tabulated in a tabular chart in the charge sheet. It is alleged that the petitioner also issued the order for payment. Hence, after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner along with the co-accused persons punishable under section 120B read with 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. The C.B.I. has not come forward, as to what wrong has been committed by the petitioner. At best, it is error of judgment in taking decision in official process of awarding contract and deciding allotment of tender and works related to that. There is no direct allegation of receiving any illegal gratification by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, further, submits that he has no knowledge that the experience certificate purportedly produced by M/s Raj Construction was fake. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner himself has not taken any decision. He either implemented the decision of the Building Committee of the CUJ or the decision initiated by him was subsequently approved by the higher authority.
The learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing loss to the CUJ and causing wrongful gain to himself and the co-accused persons to the extent of Rs. 7,11,89,776/- (approx) and the petitioner is instrumental in getting done all these activities and he was the key person in all these illegal acts. Hence, the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-