Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Chandra Jain Alias S C Jain vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I on 27 July, 2016
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2654 of 2016
Suresh Chandra Jain ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. K.P. Deo, S.C.
---------
05/Dated: 27 July, 2016
th
The instant bail application is arising out from the R.C. Case i.e. R.C. 13(A)/2014-R under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.
2. As per prosecution case one Sri Manoj Kumar, DGM (Vigilance), MECON Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., ACB Branch, Ranchi alleging therein that one Sri Suresh Chandra Jain, DGM (Scientific), MECON, Ranchi (petitioner) had submitted unauthorized letters / reports pertaining to the Integrated Steel Plant of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) to Rengali, Odisha in conspiracy with one Rajesh Das, DGM (SMS), MECON, Ranchi. It is alleged that MECON has been providing design, engineering and consultancy services to M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) for their steel plant at Rengali, Odisha for preparation of reports on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) / Environmental Management Plan (EMP) as well as Techno-Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR) for their 2.8 MTPA Expansion of their Integrated Steel Plant at Rengali, Odihsa. While the above ELA/EMP Report was completed by MECON in March 2012, the Techno-Economic Feasibility Report could not be completed mainly due to non-availability of detailed information and data to be provided by M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Limited. A number of communication were received from various banks seeking confirmation in respect of certain reports / letters pertaining to the Integrated Steel Plant of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Limited at Rengali, Odisha, which was submitted to them, but purportedly signed by Dr. S.C.Jain, DGM, MECON, Ranchi. Upon perusal of copies of -2- above said letters / reports received from various banks, the MECON confirmed that the above said letters / reports have not been prepared or submitted by or on behalf of MECON to any client or agency. The matter was informed inter-alia to respective banks and to the Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing this bail application, has admitted the fact that the petitioner Suresh Chandra Jain at the relevant time working as DGM (Scientif), MECON, Ranchi. The allegation against him is that he in connivance with other accused have prepared reports on Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Management Plan as well as Techno-Economic Feasibility Report of Phase-VI, which was forged and fabricated and never prepared by MECON. It is submitted that during course of investigation, house of the petitioner was searched and CBI had taken over hard disks and computers and during course of investigation, he was thrice interrogated by the CBI officers, but CBI does not pray for his arrest, as petitioner has fully cooperated in the investigation and final form has been submitted and also cognizance has taken.
4. It is submitted that consortium of the bank has released the amount in favour of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. not only on the basis of a report of the MECON, rather they have taken 3rd party opinion and after being satisfied the amount was released. This fact has come during course of investigation. So, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sidhdharam Satlingappa Mehtre Vs. State of Maharastra & Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein in para-112 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the facts and parameters which have been taken for consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail.
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:-
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two -3- factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.
It is submitted that if it is presumed that these petitioner has entered in criminal conspiracy and alleged to have prepared a forged report in order to get NOC from the bank, then the maximum punishment is up to seven years and during course of investigation, they have cooperated with the CBI and further there is no allegation that they are trying to influence or coerce the witnesses and they were fleeing from justice. In view of aforesaid, they deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Versus State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 (paras 21 and 22). In para-22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"22, Though the Court observed that the principles which govern the grant of ordinary bail may not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail, still such principles have to be kept in mind, namely, the object of bail which is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The Court has also to consider whether there is any possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses, etc. Once these tests are satisfied, bail should be granted to an under trial which is also important as viewed from another angle, namely, an accused person who enjous freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. Thus, grant of non-grant of bail depends upon a variety of circumstances and the cumulative effect thereof enters into judicial verdict. The Court stresses that any single circumstances cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."-4-
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for bail submitted that the officers of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. through Harish Gupta, D.G.M. (Finance) (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 2014 of 2016) have submitted the TEF Report for Phase-VI to SBI PFSBU in unauthorized manner, which was signed by this petitioner, abusing his official position as public servant, although the report was never prepared by MECON. So, he is a public servant fall within the definition of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that Suresh Chandra Jain is officer of MECON and is a public servant, who is real king-pin and real conspirator, who has prepared the fake report. Further, he submitted that the petitioner Suresh Chandra Jain has repeated his conduct twice in Phase-V & VI, hence, considering all these facts, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has referred to page no. 104 of the final form, where at column C. Lenders' views have also been mentioned. It appears that it was decided finally that MECON Reports matter & disbursement of Phase VI project loans should be de-linked, since the timeline for complete clarity on the MECON matter is uncertain and the Company and lender banks cannot wait indefinitely, especially when the company has already invested a huge amount in the project, and resultantly, the Company is facing liquidity crunch. So, it was submitted further that as a result on the basis of report prepared, purported amount was not disbursed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the C.B.I. and after going through the entire records the following facts emerges:
(i) Petitioner Suresh Chandra Jain is the officer of MECON Ltd.
(ii) MECON was assigned to prepare Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Environmental Management Plan and further Techno-Economic Feasibility Report for Phase-V was produced by MECON, but the allegation is that the report for phase VI is forged and fabricated. Further from -5- the final form, it emerges, at page 106, C. (VII), that decision was taken by the consortium of bank (known as Lenders' views). The Lenders discussed the issues at length & decided as under:-
(i) The two issues viz. MECON Reports matter & disbursement of Phase VI Project loans should be de-linked, since the timeline for complete clarity on the MECON matter is uncertain and the Company and lender banks cannot wait indefinitely, especially when the Company has already invested a huge amount in the project, and resultantly, the Company is facing liquidity crunch.
(ii) As per the fresh TEFR by MND for Phase-VI Project, the difference in the hard cost of the Project is only about 1.89% - and that too possibility due to the new Report having taken into account the actual negotiated (reduced) contract prices, as against quoted prices in the earlier report. The reduction in IDC is in line with the delays in disbursement of TL. It was also noted that the fresh equity infusion has been kept unchanged at Rs. 1,947.00 crores and the reduction in Project Cost has been factored primarily in the reduced Rupee Debt requirement.
Also the DE Ratio is improving marginally from 2.96 t0 2.88. Accordingly, the revised Appraisal Note numbers are re-confirmed / validated.
(vii) On the MECON issue, it was decided that a team of officials from PFSBU SBI, SBICAPs, PNB / Steering Committee members & BPSL should meet MECON officials at the highest level (CMD, MECON) to apprise them of lender banks' views and all the developments in the case right from the beginning, including Phase-V Project. It should be conveyed to them that, while MECON may continue with their internal enquiry, the banks are not inclined to pursue the issue any further. A report of such visit / meeting should be sent by the team to all lenders who may, thereafter, treat the matter as closed.
(iii) Investigation of the case have been completed, final form has been submitted and cognizance have been taken.
-6-(iv) During course of investigation, petitioner herein has fully cooperated with the CBI personnel and whenever they were directed they appeared and cooperated in investigation. C.B.I. has never made any complaint for non- cooperation. There is no material on record to suggest that petitioner has interfered with the investigation or trying to influence the trial and the witnesses.
8. Taking all these facts and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidhdharam Satlingappa Mehtre (supra) and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), the petitioner, above named are directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender the court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in connection with R.C. 13 (A) / 2014- R, under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. subject to further condition that one of the bailers shall be local resident of Ranchi district, solvent person. Petitioners shall also deposit their Passport, if any, before the trial court and during trial, they will fully cooperate with the CBI and also appear physically before the court below as and when directed. If they want exemption from appearance, they will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from Special Court, CBI, they may be exempted from personal appearance.
9. Let the order be communicated to the court below.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/-