Satyendra Nath Tiwari @ Satyendra ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 26 July, 2011

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Satyendra Nath Tiwari @ Satyendra ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 26 July, 2011

Bench: Pradeep Kumar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      A.B.A. No. 1329 of 2011

               Satyendra Nath Tiwari @ Satyendra Tiwary ............... Petitioner
                                           Versus
               The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.    ......... Opposite Party
                                           ----------
               CORAM:               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR

               For the Petitioner                      : Mr.Vishnu Kumar Sharma
               For the C.B.I.                          : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan

                                              -----------

 08/26.07.2011

Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf of the C.B.I. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered u/s 120B, 420,467,468 & 471 of the I.P.C 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act in connection with R.C. Case No. 14(A) of 2009-R pending in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not the contractor in the agreement. The construction of the road work was given to the M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd. and all the bills submitted before the department including the fake coal tar bills are by the M/S E.P.I. Ltd. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, who is the director of M/s Kalawati Construction has nothing to do with any submission of fake bills of coal tar or causing any loss to the department.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that petitioner , who was director of the said M/s Kalawati Construction was supposed to execute the work in question as per the MoU with M/s EPIL, which included the procurement of materials for the work. Hence, the procurement and supply of bitumen was also the responsibility of M/S Kalawati Construction. By procuring less amount of bitumen and by submitting 61 fake /forged bitumen invoices which were signed by his own employee, Uday Tiwary, purportedly issued from HPCL, to conceal such less procurement, petitioner committed substantive offence of cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine and caused a loss of Rs. 2,23,66,486/-.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the investigation report submitted by the C.B.I. shows that the petitioner was working under the EPIL, the main contractor and it is the petitioner's company who constructed the road and submitted forged bill through his own employee, Uday Tiwary, who has signed on the fake invoices, thereby giving benefit to the petitioner and causing loss to the department, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bails is rejected.

(Pradeep Kumar, J.) A. Mohanty/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court