Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is argued that as of now a charge-sheet bearing No. 05 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021 under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been filed against the applicant and 10 other persons and M/s. Anand Buldtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV). The copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 27.01.2022. It is further argued that the present case is related to one of the 1280 contracts of Rs. 954.38 crores which were signed between 14.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 in Noida Authority in which investigation has been ordered by the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.07.2015. It is argued that in the investigation it revealed that M/s STUP Consultant Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as consultant for the construction of Integrated Sports Complex including the cricket stadium project at Noida. It is further argued that N.U. Khan, the then Senior Consultant of M/s STUP Consultant Pvt. Ltd. submitted a detailed estimate for the construction of cricket stadium project on 23.10.2010 & 04.11.2010 to Noida Authority who entered into conspiracy during the year 2010-2011 with the applicant, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the then CPE, Deepak Kumar, the then Junior Engineer, R.K. Johri, the then JE (T), Anil Sharma, the then JE (Contract), R.K. Jain, the then APE, S.K. Gupta, the then PE, Sant Ram, the then CPE, A.C. Singh, the then Finance Controller along with other accused namely Devendra Kumar Gangal, Director of M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV) to facilitate allotment of tender in favour of M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV). It is further argued that the estimate as received from N.U. Khan, the then Senior Consultant of M/s STUP Consultant Pvt. Ltd. was processed without verifying from the market by the officers posted in Division and no objection was raised by any of them regarding estimate of non-scheduled items based on single quotation, forged quotation, inflated quotation and even relevancy of the items was also not analysed. Even no committee was constituted to verify the rates of non-scheduled items through JE (T) / APE (T) posted in the office. It is argued that the estimate was thereafter sent to IIT but the IIT professor did not apply his mind in analysing the rate from the market. It is argued that the members of the Estimate Committee of Noida Authority including S.K. Srivastava, CPE and A.C. Singh, Finance Controller did not raise any query on inflated rate, forged quotation and single quotation and vetted the estimate for administrative and financial approval by the CEO without weighing the technical specification, rates etc. which was finally approved by the competent authority. It is argued that Anil Kumar Sharma, JE, R.K. Jain, APE and Sant Ram CPE prepared the favourable tender documents in favour of M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV) and sold the tender documents in its favour and allowed it to participate in the tender proceeding against the CPWD Work Manual whereas the CPWD Work Manual did not allow Joint Venture to participate in tender proceedings. It is further argued that the investigation disclosed that M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV) and another participating bidder M/s Jyoti Buildtech a cartel was formed as the FDR of M/s Jyoti Buildtech was prepared from the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was transferred by M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV) to M/s Jyoti Buildtech on 27.09.2011. It is argued that in conspiracy Santram, CPE, the applicant and A.C. Singh, FC being members off tender committee declared all the three biding contractors qualified in Technical Bid but none of the contractors was eligible for it. Santram, CPE got an incriminating line i.e. "all the three parties meet the pre-qualification criteria, hence the price bid may please be opened." It is argued that Anil Kumar Sharma, JE, R.K. Jain, APE, Sant Ram CPE, Deepak Kumar, JE, R.K. Johri, JE (T) prepared the justification of the cost after opening of the technical bid against the procedure. The rates of non-scheduled items were not verified from the market and the justification of rate was just a guess without any actual survey. It is argued that the members of Tender Committee without justifying and comparing the tender rates accepted for other works in the past and recommended M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV) for allotment of work. It is argued that Devendra Kumar Gangal, Director of M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV) has good relation with the applicant who had constructed two houses of the applicant during 2009-2010 in pursuance of which M/s Anand Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (JV) was given huge benefit as the difference between the estimated price and the price on which the material was actually purchased by the contractor were found too wide. There was a total loss of Rs. 86,81,267.48. It is argued that the applicant is involved in the present case. The present anticipatory bail application deserves to be dismissed.