Jharkhand High Court
Vinay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 18 March, 2016
Author: R.N.Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 3177 of 2015
Vinay Kumar Singh ... Petitioner(s) ,
Son of Late Dr. Krishna Deo Narayan Singh,
R/o C-902,
Gaur Green Vista, Nyay Khand- I, P.O.+ P.S.- Indrapuram
Dist.- Ghaziabad,U.P.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the CBI ... Opp. Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. M. Tripathy, Sr. Adv.
For the CBI : Mr. K.P. Deo, Adv.
14 / 18.03. 2016Apprehending his arrest, in connection with R.C. Case No. 5(S)/2014-R, instituted under section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the sole petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. B. M. Tripathy appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Deo, learned counsel representing the CBI.
3. The prosecution case as it appears from the FIR lodged at the instance of the S.P, CBI, ACB, Ranchi in short, is that the DGR sponsored Ex-serviceman companies like M/s Ganpati Securties, Darbhanga, M/s MRPK Security Services, Darbhanga and M/s Loknath Security, Darbhanga have fraudulently raised bills pertaining to payment of services tax. M/s Ganpati Securities and M/s MRPK Security Services provided securities to CMPDIL, RI-III, Ranchi during the period of March 2011 to March 2013 and M/s Loknath Security provided services to CCL, Barkakana during May 2010 to April, 2012 and in terms of the agreement executed between the parties on submission of proof showing payment of service tax by security companies, the entire amount paid by them towards service tax were reimbursed by CMPDIL and CCL. It is also alleged that during the above period, M/s Ganpati Securities through its authorised signatories dishonestly and fraudulently submitted bills along with the copies of the fake challans purportedly showing payment of service tax released Rs. 1,70,950/- from CMPDIL, RI -III, Ranchi causing wrongful loss to the said company. Similarly, the authorsied signatories of M/s MRPK Security Services by producing fraudulent and fake bills released Rs. 2,12,100/- from CMPDIL, RI-III, Ranchi causing wrongful loss. M/s Loknath Security also through its authorised signatories submitted fake challans causing wrongful loss of Rs. 6,63, 489/- to CCL, Barkakana.
4. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Tripathy appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a Chartered Accountant was appointed by the Security Agency M/s Loknath Security, M/s Ganpati Securities and M/s MRPK Security Services as Auditor and Financial Consultant and the petitioner was made responsible to perform financial services involving auditing or verification of financial transaction and accounting books, accounts or records or preparation on the basis of records and data produced by staff of those security companies including filling of ITR and ST returns etc. and that the petitioner was paid a monthly retainership fee only and all the responsibility regarding submission of financial transaction or tax were of staff of those security companies and this petitioner had no any connection with the submission of fake challans or bills towards payment of service tax to the Government and only after preparation and submission of those challans before him by staff of those companies, this petitioner had submitted those challans to the concerned departments like CMPDIL, Ranchi and CCL.
5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with either wrongful gain or wrongful loss to security providers and the Government Departments respectively. Learned senior counsel further controverting the statement given by Ajay Kumar Singh and Rajesh Kumar under 164 Cr.P.C, submitted that from the letter of appointment issued by those securities companies, enclosed with this anticipatory bail application, it would be clear that this petitioner was a monthly retainer of those security companies and the statement of those persons that this petitioner was the owner of the security agency are palpably false and wrong and that this petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and in similar case bearing no. 19
(s)/2013 -R, the petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Learned senior counsel further relying upon the appointment letters of Ajay Kumar Singh enclosed with supplementary affidavit, submitted that the said company M/s Loknath Security, had appointed Ajay Kumar Singh as General Manager, Admn. & Operation (annexure D) but the said person under pressure of the proprietors of the Security Agencies, has changed his stand and wrongly claimed to be an employee of this petitioner.
7. Learned counsel , Mr. Deo, appearing for the CBI opposed the prayer relying upon the chargesheet submitted at the instance of the CBI and submitted that all the three security companies were being managed by this petitioner and day-to-day bank account transactions of all the three firms were monitored by him and his details have been registered with banks for receiving SMS alerts. It was also submitted that two cheques of M/s MRPK Security and M/s Ganpati Security which were purportedly shown to be used for depositing two fake challans were deposited in the accounts of this petitioner and he was the person responsible to monitor the payment of service tax etc. and in conspiracy with the three proprietors of the security providers, this petitioner put the Government Departments in wrongful loss and wrongful gain to these proprietors and their firms.
8. Considering the submissions of the counsels, the allegations, the chargesheet and the fact of criminal conspiracy, along with the proprietors of the three security providers, causing wrongful loss to the Government Departments and wrongful gain to the companies, I am not inclined to grant the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is, hereby, rejected.
(R.N.Verma, J.) Smita/-