Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Charan Bhagat vs State Of Jharkhand Through Vig on 6 January, 2012
Author: R. R. Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3715 of 2011
Ramashish Sinha @ Ramasshish Singh ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s A. K. Singh, Advocate.
For the Vigilance : M/s T. N. Verma, Advocate.
-----
03 /06.01.2012. As prayed for, on behalf of the C.B.I., list this case on 13.01.2012, so that counter-affidavit be filed.
Till then, interim order passed on 16.12.2011, shall continue.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Sandeep/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3303 of 2011
Nitish Bhalotia ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Manish Kumar, Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : M/s Md. M. Khan, A.S.G.I.
-----
03 /06.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 477A of the I.P.C and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No.14(A) of 2009- AHD-R. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the 'National Rural Health Mission Scheme' 79 chasis were purchased by the Health Department for converting it into a Medical Mobile Unit without their being any prior approval of the competent authority and for that purpose tenders were invited. Pursuant to that it is said that this petitioner submitted tender papers along with two other firms and out of them one firm, namely, M/s BEBBCO was awarded tender whose proprietor on getting chasis converted into Medical Mobile when supplied it to the department was paid which amount was excessive amount collusively as he was in collusion with the main accused, Dr. Pradeep Kumar and others as a result of which the Government suffered a great loss, but so far this petitioner is concerned he happens to be one of the Directors of the Bharat Automobiles Private Ltd., though the petitioner was earlier one of the Directors of M/s BEBBCO, but he had resigned much earlier i.e. 10.04.2002 and, therefore, merely submitting tenders pursuant to the N.I.T. would not fasten him with any criminal liability in absence of any further material that this petitioner facilitated the other accused in committing offence of cheating and forgery.
However, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., submits that the directors of all the three firms are coming from one family and that tender papers were submitted by the firm, M/s Bharat Automobiles Private Ltd to which the petitioner is one of the directors by quoting the rate which was quite excess and that the tender papers were submitted after expiry of the last date.
This was replied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even if the aforesaid facts are taken to be true it hardly make out a case against the petitioner.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above-named is directed to surrender before the court below, within ten days from the date of this order and on his surrender, the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in connection with R.C. Case No.14(A) of 2009-AHD-R subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Sandeep/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3717 of 2011
Shiv Chandra Bhagat ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s J. Triparthy, Advocate.
For the Vigilance : M/s Nilesh Kr., A.P.P.
-----
02 /06.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance.
The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 201, 424, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)d read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of his arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.06 of 2003.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the prosecution itself that one Murlidhar Pandey, the then District Superintendent of Education, Pakur gave promotion illegally to certain teachers and on the basis of the promotion, pay was fixed of those two persons upon which salary of one Amin Hembram was drawn by the petitioner being drawing and disbersing officer still the petitioner has been made accused though he had nothing to do with the matter relating to promotion of said Amin Hembram or others.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to surrender himself before the court below within three weeks from today, and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.06 of 2003, corresponding to Special Case No.07 of 2003, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Sandeep/ (R. R. Prasad, J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3659 of 2011
Sanjay Palsania ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Sachin Kumar, Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : M/s Md. Mokhtar Khan, A.S.G.I.
-----
07 /06.01.2012. Pursuant to the order passed on 23.11.2011, the photo-copies of the challans have been produced, but not the originals. However, it was stated by Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. that it were photo-copies of the invoices which were sent for its verification upon which the petitioner put his signatures after verifying it to be genuine and that the signatures of the petitioner which are there on the invoices were compared with the admitted signatures of the petitioner and it was found that the signatures which are there on the invoices are of the petitioner.
However, it was denied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the signatures which are there on the photo-copies of the invoices are of the petitioner rather the petitioner has verified the invoices to be genuine on the forwarding letter and not on any of the photo-copies of the invoices.
In view of the facts and circumstances, let an affidavit be filed on behalf of the C.B.I., bringing on record the photo-copies of the invoices and the specimen signatures of the petitioner from which signatures which were there on the invoices were compared and also the report of the hand-writing expert.
As prayed for, by the C.B.I., list this case on 13.1.2012.
(R. R. Prasad, J) Sandeep/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI B.A. No. 9068 of 2011 Bina Mishra @ Beena Mishra ..... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... Opp. Party(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Petitioner(s) : M/s A. K. Kasyap, Sr. Advocate.
Y. Triparthi, Advocate For the Vigilance : M/s T. N. Verma, Advocate
-----
05 /06.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 403, 406, 409, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petitioner the then Warden of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalay, Petarwar, Bokaro has been made accused on accusation that this petitioner has received a sum of Rs.70,000/- as bribe from Ashok Kumar Bharati and only on receiving bribe of Rs.70,000/- the amount was withdrawn from the joint account of this petitioner and Ashok Kumar Bharati which amount is said to have been misappropriated, but any statement of giving bribe coming from the mouth of the co-accused does not have any evidentiary value and that before the lodgment of this case, this petitioner had lodged a case against Ashok Kumar Bharati a year before and that is the reason why he had made statement like that of giving bribe of Rs.70,000/- and hence, the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail.
As against this learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that the amount was withdrawn by the accused persons in connivance with each other including this petitioner without completing the job.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.68 of 2010, corresponding to Special Case No.85 of 2010.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Sandeep/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B.A. No. 9110 of 2011
Archana Kumari ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Laxman Kumar, Advocate.
For the Vigilance : M/s Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
-----
02 /06.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 403, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner the Warden of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalay, Chandankiary, Bokaro has only been alleged to have opened a joint account in the bank in her name as well as in the named of Ashok Bharati in contravention of rule and thereby the amount was withdrawn without completion of the work, but the enquiry report shows that the work has been completed and only a sum of Rs.40,927/- has been shown as unadjusted but a sum of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited by the co-accused, Ashok Bharati and under the situation, the petitioner be admitted to bail as the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that after the amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited a sum of Rs.30,927/- still remains unaccounted for.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above-named, on deposit of a sum of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand), before the Nirman Samiti of the school is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.68 of 2010, corresponding to Special Case No.85 of 2010.
Sandeep/ (R. R. Prasad, J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B.A. No. 9146 of 2011
Pushpa Kumari ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Akhouri Anjani Kr., Advocate.
For the Vigilance : M/s Nilesh Kr., Advocate.
-----
04 /06.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 403, 406, 409, 120(B), 467, 468, 471, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 /13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who at the relevant point of time was Block Education Extension Officer, Gomia has been alleged to have introduced Ashok Kumar Bharati at the time of opening account in a Bank and received a sum of Rs.60,000/- for being introducer, but this allegation has been levelled by Ashok Kumar Bharati, a co-accused as the petitioner had earlier lodged a case of misappropriation against Ahok Bharati and under this situation, the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that this petitioner though has lodged the case against Ashok Kumar Bharati, but the petitioner lodged the case only when this Court directed the Vigilance on 15.10.2009 to conduct the enquiry and, therefore, whatever statement has been made by the co-accused it can be taken into evidence.
Upon it, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for such allegation, petitioner can be said to have sufficiently been punished as she has been remained in custody since 14.10.2011.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.68 of 2010, corresponding to Special Case No.85 of 2010.
(R. R. Prasad, J) Sandeep/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI B.A. No. 9380 of 2011 Lalan Kumar Choudhary @ Lalan Choudhary..... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... Opp. Party(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Petitioner(s) : M/s P. K. Deomani, Advocate.
For the Vigilance : M/s T. N. Verma, A.P.P.
-----
03 /06.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The only allegation which has been levelled against the petitioner and other accused persons is that in spite of doing work, the informant was not paid his due amount of Rs.95,035/- and Rs.70,028/- , but that allegation does not make out any allegation of cheating, forgery or misappropriation.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.63 of 2010, corresponding to Special Case No.80 of 2010.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Sandeep/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B.A. No. 7483 of 2011
Hiralal Minz ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s S. P. Roy, Advocate.
For the State : A.P.P.
-----
06/06.01.2012. The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected on 29.01.2008. Again the prayer for bail of this petitioner has been renewed through this application, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 16.07.2007.
It be stated that earlier when the matter was heard, a report was called for regarding stage of trial and also expected time to be consumed in conclusion of the trial. Pursuant to that a report has been submitted wherein it has been mentioned that only two witnesses out of ten have been examined.
Under the circumstances, it does appear that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.07.2007 whereas, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No.22 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. No.644 of 1998 (S.T. No.239 of 2007), on a condition that the petitioner would appear on each and every date, failing which, his bail bond would be liable to be cancelled.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Sandeep/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B.A. No. XXXXX of 20XXX
XXXXXX ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & XXXX .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s XXXX, Advocate.
For the State : M/s XXXXXX
-----
XX/06.01.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections ......of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that ...... Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ................................, .........in connection with XXXXXXX P.S. Case No.XXX of XXX, corresponding to G.R. No.XXX of XXX.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Sandeep/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W. P. (XX) No. XXXXX of 20XXX
XXXXXX ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & XXXX .... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s XXXX, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : M/s XXXXXX
-----
XX/06.01.2012.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Sandeep/