Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 5 August, 2015
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 4488 of 2015
Prakash Kumar Das ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ...... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Satish Kumar Deo, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mrs. Chandra Prabha, Advocate.
------
2/05.08.2015Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Vigilance P.S case No. 30 of 2013 corresponding to Special Case No.31 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 409, 109, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (C ) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case relates to irregularities committed in Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Authority (JREDA), in which, it is alleged that there was defalcation of huge amount of Government money. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Project Officer in JREDA.
The FIR shows that there is allegation against the then Director of JREDA and also co-accused in the case, that the work of Solar electrification of 82 villages was not allotted to a Public Sector Firm, namely REIL of Jaipur, whereas the same was allotted to a private firm, namely PPS Invioro Power (P) Ltd., Hydrabad, and it is alleged that the agreement was entered between the PPS Invioro Power (P) Ltd and the Director of JREDA, through backdating the agreement. It is also alleged that the huge amount of Government fund was defalcated by the accused persons and the FIR was lodged.
There is allegation against the petitioner, being the Project Officer at JREDA, that the petitioner was the custodian of the said agreement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and neither the petitioner had entered -2- into the agreement between the JREDA & PPS Invioro Power (P) Ltd, nor any payment was made to the said company by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner being the Project Officer was only the custodian of the said agreement. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, but upon going through the case diary, it is admitted that the payment was made by the other official of the JREDA. It is submitted that this petitioner was the custodian of the agreement, and being a public servant, he should have brought it to the notice of the State Government.
In the facts of this case, taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner of only being the custodian of the agreement, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Prakash Kumar Das, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, 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 learned Special Judge Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S case No. 30 of 2013, corresponding to Special Case No.31 of 2013.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/