Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Kumar Pandey Alias Ajay Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 17 January, 2014
Author: D.N. Upadhyay
Bench: D. N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 6013 of 2013
Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Ajay Pandey .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. K. Kashyap & Lina Shakti
For the CBI : Mr. M. Khan
---
10/ 17.01.2014: This is an application for grant of regular bail under Sections 120B/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2)/ 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988.
It appears that pursuant to the order dated 30.6.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court in connection with writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 803 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry was done with regard to irregularities committed by the Engineers of Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, the contractors and other persons in the matter of purported procurement of bitumen for construction of roads. Later first information was lodged against concerned Engineers, Contractors and the persons involved in the bitumen scam. It is alleged that M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. having its office at 3A, Line Tank road, Ranchi was awarded with the work under Agreement No. 07F2/04-05 for periodic renewal of KM 50, 56 to 60 of NH 23 and under agreement No. 02F2/06-07 for periodic renewal of KM 61 and 62 of NH 23 at the agreemental value of Rs. 1,51,73,620/- and Rs. 39,44,046/- respectively. During enquiry it was transpired that M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. had submitted fake invoices against procurement of bill and received payment of around Rs. 1,84,72,867/-. During investigation, the I.O. found that the petitioner had signed 64 numbers of fake invoices submitted by the accused contractor company to the N.H. Division, Dhanbad.
It is submitted that the petitioner was an employee under M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. and he was compelled to sign those invoices at the instance of his master. It is apparent from the contention made in the charge-sheet that no money was transferred to the account of petitioner and it is nowhere stated as to how he has been benefited due to alleged forgery, if committed by the contractor concerned i.e. M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. Some of the accused persons, namely, Dilip Singh, Murlidhar Pandey, Anil Kumar Jha, Ram Singar Choudhary and Ganpat Rao have been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court. It is pointed out that Dilip Kumar Singh who happens to be contractor of the said company i.e. M/s. Classic Coal 2. Construction (P) Ltd. has been granted bail. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the development that the petitioner has been made approver in other two cases by the C.B.I., but in the present case he has been made accused. The petitioner has also filed a petition in the Court below stating therein that in this case too he wants to become approver and give evidence so that truth may surface. He is rotting in jail since 31.5.2013.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that ample evidence has been collected against this petitioner.
I have gone through the F.I.R., the contents of charge-sheet and the materials placed before me. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an employee under M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd.. It is also not in dispute that on presentation of fake invoices against procurement of bitumen, the payment was received and credited in the account of company of which the petitioner was an employee. The I.O. is completely silent as to what benefit the petitioner had received. Save and except the petitioner had signed those fake invoices, there is nothing on record to indicate that out of the said forgery he has been benefited in any manner. Furthermore, the petitioner has gone to the extent to become approver to support the case of the prosecution and he has taken that risk.
In the aforesaid circumstances, and also considering period of detention of the petitioner in custody, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum- Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2010R with the condition that he will cooperate with the trial and remain present as and when required.
(D.N. Upadhyay, J.) MK