Jharkhand High Court
Subodh Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 10 May, 2012
Author: Jaya Roy
Bench: Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No 847 of 2012
---
Subodh Kumar Singh ....... Petitioner
----Versus----
State of Jharkhand, through C.B.I. ......... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
----
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy
For the C.B.I. : Md. Mokhtar Khan
-----
08/ 10.05.2012Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and also under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi i.e. R.C. Case No.11(A)/2009-(R) dated 16.09.2009.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present case is instituted on the written report submitted by the informant in compliance of the order dated 30.6.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 803 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry vide No. PE 03(A) /09(R) was taken up into for the alleged large scale irregularities and embezzlement of corers of rupees by the Engineers of the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Contractors and other persons in the matter of procurement of Bitumen for construction of roads by private contractors. The inquiry prima facie revealed criminality in the matter.
4. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that Shri Shyam Sunder Singh, Birendra Kumar and Sone Lal Das, the then Executive Engineers, Road Division, Road Construction Department (RCD), Hazaribagh, during the period 2002-07, entered into criminal conspiracy among themselves and with M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd., 3A, Vatika
-4- A.B.A. No 847 of 2012 Apartment, Line Tank Road, Ranchi and unknown others and in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. submitted false/bogus invoices showing procurement of Bitumen for the execution of 07 contractual works awarded to them, which caused wrongful gain to the contractor and official concerned and corresponding to huge wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand to the tune of crores of rupees.
5. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that he was Junior Engineer Hazaribagh Road Division. It is also submitted that there is no whisper regarding the present petitioner in the F.I.R. Mr. Roy has submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and in the said charge sheet, allegation has been made against the petitioner that he has committed criminal misconduct certifying eight invoices which were fake submitted by the contractors and thus, helped the contractors in getting illegal payment.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Managing Director of the Classic Coal Construction Ltd. had written a letter to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, on 8th March 2007, informing that as there was delay in getting the Bitumen, his work, which were going on the site, were going to be delayed, but as the Bitumen available to the said Contractor for Chittarpur - Rajrappa Road Construction, he can use the said Bitumen for the work of Gola - Muri Road, as the said work has to be completed in the financial year. He has also asked to permit him to use the said Bitumen for the work of Gola -Muri Road, and ultimately permission was given to him for the same and to support his contentions, he has annexed the letters giving permission by the Executive Engineer to the Contractor as Annexures
-4- A.B.A. No 847 of 2012
-3 and 4 of this application. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has not certified any invoices as alleged against him in the charge sheet.
7. Mr. Roy has further submitted that one of the partner of M/s Siddharth Construction namely Jyotindra Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 87 of 2012 vide order dated 13.1.2012 by another Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that another co- accused Ripu Sudan Dubey has filed a quashing application i.e. Cr. M.P. No. 1136 of 2011 for quashing the order taking cognizance against him in this case and after hearing the parties, another Bench of this Court has set aside the order taking cognizance of the offence against the said co accused by the order dated 27.4.2012 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1136 of 2011.
8. The counsel for the C.B.I., Mr. Khan has submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R but in the investigation it has come that he was posted in the Hazaribagh Road Div. During 2005-08 as Junior Engineer and he was supposed to supervise the whole work being executed under him. He was required to take 100 % measurement and record them in the measurement book and to prepare on Account Bill on the basis of such measurement. He was looking after the work executed under agreement number 15F2/06-07. In this case altogether 34 Bitumen invoices purported to have been issued from HPCL, Ram Nagar, Kolkata were submitted by the contractor. It is further submitted that during the investigation all the invoices were found as fake. The present petitioner certified the twenty six fake Bitumen Invoices in order to give undue benefit to the contractor by facilitating payment of the Bill of the contractor on the basis of such fake invoices. Even other eight invoices did not contain
-4- A.B.A. No 847 of 2012 details of Bitumen and the present petitioner even then, put his signature on those eight invoices, thus, putting signature on the fake invoices and approved them for payment, the petitioner has committed the offence and ultimately in this Bitumen scam loss causing to the Government of Jharkhand is to the tune of crores.
9. Mr. Khan has further submitted that in the similar type of offence in another case, where allegation against the Assistant Engineer was regarding putting signature on the fake invoices submitted by the contractor for the Bitumen, the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected even his prayer for regular bail even after remaining in the custody for more than a year in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1034 of 2012 between Manish Kumar Versus C.B.I., vide order dated 2nd March, 2012.
10. Considering the submissions made by the parties and considering that during the investigation the materials have come against the petitioner that he has certified and put his signature on the fake invoices submitted by the contractor , I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Jaya Roy, J.) SI/