Jharkhand High Court
Shivmuni Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Central ... on 24 February, 2016
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A.No. 9547 of 2015
Shivmuni Ram, son of late Sukhu Ram, resident of village Castair's Town, P.O. &
P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner.
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I. ------ Opp. Party.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiva Sharma, Sr. Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate.
------
12/ 24.02..2016: Heard Mr. Rajiva Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the CBI.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with R.C. Case No. 19(A)/2009 (R) registered for the offence punishable under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with section 13(2)(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution story, as per the first information report, is that during the period 2004-06 two of the Executive Engineers of the Road Construction Department had entered into a criminal conspiracy with others and had submitted false and bogus invoices showing purchase of Bitumen for execution of the construction work causing wrongful gain to the contractor and wrongful loss to the State. It is alleged that M/s Kalawati Construction Pvt. Ltd. was awarded with the contract work for widening and strengthening of Chhatarpur Japla Road from 0 K.M. to 32.5 K.M. for contract value of Rs. 7,59,05,000/- against which the contractor has submitted Invoices showing procurement of Bitumen. It is further alleged that out of 14 invoices showing procurement of Bitumen 165.44 MT packet, Bitumen were not actually issued by the IOCL, Jamshedpur Depot and the same were forged and fabricated and the Bitumen which was purportedly procured were on the basis of forged and fabricated invoices.
Mr. Rajiva Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the first information report the petitioner was not named and, in fact, two of the Junior engineers, who were involved in the Project, were named in the first information report. It has been submitted that there is no allegation with respect to the petitioner that the entries made in the Measurement book were distorted and in fact no inspection was carried out by the Investigating Agency to suggest that the entries made in the Measurement Book were wrong. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the duties of the Junior Engineers have been categorized and they were required to verify the fact that the work was done as per specification and to prepare the bill for payment to the contractor and certify that 100% of work was being executed. It has -2- been submitted that so far as the Invoices, which have been alleged to be forged are concerned, the same was within the ambit of the duties of the Executive Engineers and in such circumstance the petitioner being the Junior Engineer in the Project could not be fastened with a criminal liability. It has been submitted that, in fact, the petitioner is suffering from various ailment and that he is in custody since 14.10.2015 and, therefore, he deserves to be released on bail.
At this Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the CBI, has submitted that after the first information report was instituted, investigation was conducted by the CBI and after conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted in the year 2011 against the accused persons including the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had preferred A.B.A. No. 1865 of 2011, which was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2011. Learned counsel further adds that in course of investigation it was detected that payment was made to the contractor on the strength of false and fabricated documents and it was a concerted effort on the part of the Junior Engineers as well as Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers in connivance with the contractor in causing wrongful gain to the contractor and wrongful loss to the State. Learned counsel further adds that in similar circumstance the bail application of Baleshwar Baitha has been rejected in B.A. No. 8613 of 2014.
It appears that the petitioner who was a Junior Engineer at the relevant time along with other Engineers, who have been charge sheeted for connivance with the each other in committing a criminal act causing a huge loss to the State. The charge sheet denotes the involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence . It is a fact that some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail on surrendering but the same was on account of their deposit of proportionate amount of loss caused to the Government. So far the merit of the case is concerned as has been discussed above, the petitioner in league with other accused persons have committed an act in which wrongful loss was caused to the Government.
Considering the specific role of the petitioner in the commission of offence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Sharma/-