Azad Singh vs C.B.I. on 22 September, 2023

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Azad Singh vs C.B.I. on 22 September, 2023

2. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shahjad Alam, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI and perused the record.

3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Azad Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with RC No. 1202018A0009 of 2018 for offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended 2018), registered at Police Station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad by Ajay Kumar Meena, Sub Inspector, CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad against Sanjay Kumar, Azad, Ankit Kumar, Anuj Kumar, Sushil, Suresh, Sudhir and other unknown persons with the allegation that a preliminary enquiry was registered on 28.03.2018 on the basis of a written complaint dated 27.03.2018 of the Chief Vigilance Officer, Power Grid of India Limited wherein it was alleged that in the construction of 400 KV D/C Roorkee-Saharanpur Transmission Line during the period from 2014 to 2016, Sanjay Kumar the then Senior Engineer of Power Grid Corporation, Saharanpur released excess amounts of compensation to various farmers, and thereafter, the money was transferred into the accounts of various relatives of Sanjay Kumar. The preliminary enquiry disclosed that during the period from 2014-16 Power Grid Corporation constructed 400 KV D/C Roorkee Transmission Line by engaging M/s KEC International Limited. The compensation was to be paid to the land owners for damage of their trees or crops in construction of aforesaid power transmission line. Sanjay Kumar in collusion with some farmers and other unknown persons and the officials of the department released excess amount of compensation to various farmers and received kickback amount in the bank accounts of his relatives. Azad Singh the brother of Sanjay Kumar actively participated on behalf of Sanjay Kumar for receiving kickback from bank accounts of the said farmers. The total amount of Rs. 92,38,670/- was released as compensation to five persons who are named therein. Out of the said amount Rs. 55,65,000/- was received as kickback directly or indirectly in the bank accounts of the relatives and known persons of Sanjay Kumar who are Azad Singh (brother of Sanjay Kumar), Smt. Shalini (wife of Sanjay Kumar), Smt. Soniya (wife of Azad Singh), Smt. Paramjeet (sister of Sanjay Kumar) and Rajnish (partner of Azad Singh and known persons of Sanjay Kumar). The Power Grid thus suffered a wrongful loss of Rs. 92,38,000/- by false entries of number of trees in the names of farmers and thus there was corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons.

4. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet No. 4 dated 30.06.2021 was filed against Sanjay Kumar, Azad Singh, Rajnish Singh, Shalini Singh and Smt. Soniya. The no charge-sheeted persons whose name appeared in column No. 12 of the charge sheet, are Ankit Kumar, Anuj Kumar, Sushil Kumar, Suresh and Sudhir Kumar. In so far as the the applicant is concerned, his name appears as an accused no. 2 in the said charge sheet who has been charge sheeted for offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420 IPC and Section 9, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The copy of the First Information Report is annexed as annexure 1 of the present bail application whereas the charge sheet is annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.02.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:-

(i) The applicant is a private person and brother of Sanjay Kumar (the Senior Engineer Power Grid Corporation, Saharanpur).

(ii) No direct payment has been received by the applicant from the Power Grid Department.

(iii) The applicant is a businessman doing business of real estate and as such many farmers after receiving compensation from the Power Grid Department wanted to invest their money in property and as such had given money to the applicant for their investment.

(iv) Some FIRs were lodged by the concerned farmers against the applicant and his family members but the said matter has ended in a compromise between them in which an agreement has been entered into between respective farmers and the accused persons.

(v) No specific role has been assigned to the applicant.

(vi) Co-accused Rajnish was granted bail by the trial court but he has died during the pendency of trial.

(vii) The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and the applicant is not a proclaimed offender as stated in paragraph 28 of the affidavit in support of the bail application.

(viii) The applicant is in jail since 06.04.2022.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued as follows:-

(i) The applicant is the brother of co-accused Sanjay Kumar (the Senior Engineer Power Grid Corporation). He acted independently and also on behalf of his brother and was instrumental in managing the payment of excess money to the farmers as compensation and then taking kickbacks from them in his account and in the accounts of other family members.

(ii) The wife of Sanjay Kumar and the wife of the applicant are also an accused as they have received money in their bank accounts as kickbacks for the transaction.

(iii) The applicant has returned some of the money to some farmers, the details of which have come during investigation which would go to show that he had initially received the kickbacks and after objections by the farmers, the same were returned.

(iv) The applicant had started a partner firm with Rajnish Kumar for carrying out tower foundation with KEC International and had executed a partnership deed on 15.04.2015. The said firm worked as a sub-contractor of M/s KEC International in the construction work of Roorkee, Saharanpur Transmission Line and received of payment of Rs. 42,34,291/- despite the fact that grant of contract was subject to the condition that there should have been no engagement of relatives with the execution company.

(v) Various cheques were taken and filled by the applicant of the farmers and were presented in the bank accounts of the accused persons which were the kickbacks.

(vi) The applicant also received money in his bank accounts which is not disputed by the applicant himself in the present bail application whereas he states that the same was given to him by the farmers for puchase of land.

(vii) The counter affidavit in para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 clearly shows the involvement of the applicant and the money being transferred to the account of the applicant and his relatives from the accounts of the farmers.

(viii) Para 53 of the counter affidavit clearly states that the applicant is a proclaimed offender. The applicant absconded after lodging of the FIR and it was only after issuance of process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. he was apprehended.

(ix) The present case is a case of economic offence which has to be dealt with in a different manner. Looking to the fact that such corruption has to be dealt with in a different manner. Para 54 and 55 and the judgment in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) : AIR 2023 SC 330 has been placed before the Court for the same.

(x) Co-accused Sanjay Kumar applied for bail before this Court through Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18624 of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. CBI) which has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023.

(xi) The bail application deserves to be rejected since he is also one of the beneficiaries of the kickbacks received from the farmers.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the case is of excess payment of compensation to farmers for which they were not entitled by Sanjay Kumar the Senior Engineer in Power Grid, Saharanpur. The applicant although is a private person but is brother of Sanjay Kumar who as per investigation in the matter had interacted with the farmers and was instrumental in getting them excess compensation illegally and in turn kickbacks were received in his account and also in the bank account of his wife, the wife of Sanjay Kumar and one other accused from the farmers. There is no denial on behalf of the applicant regarding money being received from the farmers but he has been stated that the applicant is a business man dealing in real estate and had received money from the farmers which they had got as compensation for being used in land purchase. The investigation does not give even an iota of evidence regarding the applicant working as a businessman in real estate but to the contrary has come out that the applicant with another co-accused had a partnership firm and was a contractor and worked in the same department where his brother was posted as Senior Engineer and had extended the work order.

8. The records show transfer of money in the account of the applicant from the account of the farmers. Even the wife of the applicant was seen to have received money from bank accounts of the farmers. The applicant was surrendered after process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. The bail of co-accused Sanjay Kumar who is the Senior Engineer Power Grid, Saharanpur has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023. The said order reads as under:-

"1. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Shrish Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I.

2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Special Case No. 01 of 2021 (RC No. 1202018A0009), under Sections 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 420 I.P.C and Section 9, 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- CBI ACB, District Ghaziabad, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. First bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.02.2023.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. At the relevant time, applicant was working as Senior Engineer in Power Grid Corporation of India (PGCI) and the allegation that applicant, in collusion with farmers, got released excess amount in favour of the farmers and received kickbacks, is wholly false. As per prosecution version, compensation was to be awarded to the farmers, whose crops and trees were damaged in establishment of 400 K.V. transmission line by KEC International Ltd. and that the dispute arose from the said compensation amount. In connection with the same dispute, prior the first information report of the instant case, a complaint was made by a farmer and thus, the first information report of this case, on same allegations, was not permissible under law. In the first F.I.R., the applicant was exonerated during investigation. The allegation, levelled by C.B.I. in the charge-sheet submitted against the applicant, are wholly false. The amount of compensation paid to the farmers was in absolute conformity with the policy and agreed rates. In fact, the amount was agreed between the PGCIL and the farmers and applicant has no involvement in the same. A public notice was also issued in newspapers regarding the amount payable. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the applicant was not involved in determination of the compensation amount or in payment of the same and he has absolutely no concern with dispute between the farmers and the PGCIL. The number of trees, which were supposed to be cut off under the said project, were well known to the farmers. The counter check was also performed by the officials of PGCIL and the evaluation of number of trees was made. No amount from the accounts of farmers, who have received compensation, was transferred into the account of applicant. In fact, the amount transferred into the account of brother of applicant through cheque, is not concerned with the alleged compensation and that amount was returned back. The alleged payments made to co-accused Azad and Rajnish have no concern with the applicant and in fact they were well acquainted with the farmers, who have received the compensation. The amounts transferred into the account of wife of applicant, were bona fide transaction and in consideration of sale deeds and that the applicant's wife has nothing to do with any kickbacks amount. The additional payment received from Rajnish, is in relation to a partnership in reference to a plot. The said partnership was dedicated to the business of plotting. The farmers did not allege any fraudulent activity against the applicant. Learned Senior counsel has referred the statement of witnesses, examined during investigation, and also referred certain documents and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that now the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2022 and thus, applicant has already undergone the custody of about 13 months. The investigation is complete and thus, applicant is no more required for the purposes of investigation.

4. Learned counsel for C.B.I. has opposed the bail application and argued that the applicant was working as Senior Engineer in PGCIL and he hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Ajad and other co-accused persons and received huge amount in kickbacks through bank account of his wife, his brother and his friends and by that way, total amount of Rs. 55,95,000/- was obtained, directly or indirectly, by applicant as kickbacks. It was shown that from the account of farmer Sudhir, an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was transferred into the account of co-accused Rajnish Kumar and an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was transferred into account of Shalini(wife of applicant). From the account of farmer Sudhir, an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was transferred into the account of Soniya(wife of co-accused Ajad). Similarly, an amount of Rs. 9,80,000/- was transferred from the account of farmer Sushil to the account of Ajad Singh, who in turn transferred an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- into account of said Shalini (wife of applicant). It was submitted that after registration of the case, applicant did not appear and thus, the process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., was issued against him and only thereafter, applicant surrendered. It was submitted that if applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence.

5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, quantum of amount obtained in kickbacks, conduct of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the matter, at this stage, no case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application of applicant Sanjay Kumar, is hereby rejected.

9. The present matter relates to economic offence. Times and again it has been observed by the Apex Court and other Courts that matters of economic offences have to be dealt with strictly. The applicant has been beneficiary of money from the bank accounts of the farmers apart from his in above participation in other manner in the present case.

10. In the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement : (2019) 9 SCC 24 the Apex Court while considering the gravity of economic offences observed as follows:

"80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364], it was held as under : (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

(emphasis supplied)"

11. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, the nature of matter, applicant being a beneficiary of kickback from the farmers and the dictum of the Apex Court, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 22.09.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court