Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I.. 2. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 (2) read with Sections 13(1)(c)&(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with R.C. Case no. 11(A)/2009-AHD-R. 3. The petitioner is the main accused in a commonly known ‘Medicine Scam’, in which, omissions and commissions of the high Officials, Minister and Suppliers in making purchases of the medicines and other medical equipments, much beyond the requirement and at highly inflated rates, as also exceeding much beyond the budgetary provisions, have caused wrongful loss to the State Government, as the purchases were made to the tune of Rs. 130,50,79,951.74, without assessing the actual requirement and without following the procedure prescribed in this regard . 4. The petitioner being an I.A.S. Officer, was posted as Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, and was also functioning as Mission Director, Jharkhand Rural Mission Society, from the period 20.6.2008 to 3.9.2009 and during his tenure, such omissions and commissions were made in making purchases to the tune of more than one hundred thirty crores of rupees. The matter was investigated by the C.B.I. and after investigation, the C.B.I. has filed the charge-sheet, in which, it is alleged against the petitioner as follows:- “(i) Orders for the purchase of the items such as sanitary napkins, first aid book, triangular bandages, cotton bandages, safety pin, thermometer, pen torch and galvanized first aid box were placed on M/s Nand Kishore Fogla by Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, the then State R.C.H. Officer after approval of the same was accorded by Dr. Pradeep Kumar. These items were purchased for an amount of Rs. 7,59,01,768/-. (ii) All the payments to the supplier have been made by Dr. Pradeep Kumar. (iii) In the expenditure report transmitted to Govt. of India, he deflated the actual amount of expenditure made on the procurement of medicine and medical equipment and in lieu of an actual expenditure of Rs. 3015.31 lacs, Dr. Pradeep Kumar reflected a sum of Rs. 2989.24 lacs i.e. exactly the amount of budget allocation. Similarly he reflected an amount of Rs. 956 lacs as an expenditure made on the procurement of sahiyya kit as against the actual expenditure of Rs. 1031.06 lacs. 3015.31 lacs, Dr. Pradeep Kumar reflected a sum of Rs. 2989.24 lacs i.e. exactly the amount of budget allocation. Similarly he reflected an amount of Rs. 956 lacs as an expenditure made on the procurement of sahiyya kit as against the actual expenditure of Rs. 1031.06 lacs. (iv) At his instance stringent criteria was imposed in the tenders to suit the supplier of his choice. (v) He received illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 4,85,00,000/-from M/s Nand Kishore Fogla in five installments. This is proved by the confessional statements of Rajesh Kumar Fogla, S/o Nand Kishore Fogla, the proprietor of M/s Nand Kishore Fogla recorded as an accused u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate I-Class. The amount of pay off was conduited through Shyamal Chakarborty. The confessional statement of Rajesh Kumar Fogla stands corroborated by Shri Vikash Khetan (who too made his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.) as an accused”. 5. So far as charges Nos. (i) and (ii) are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that supply order was issued by Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, the then State RCH Officer, without approval of petitioner, Dr. Pradeep Kumar. In this connection, he has pointed out from the charges levelled against Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, wherein, it has been stated that supply order was issued without approval of the petitioner. As regards charge No. (iii), learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was only a signatory to the statement sent to the Government of India. As regards charge No. (iv), learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner was not the member of Tender Committee and it is not specified in the charge that what stringent criteria was imposed against him, rather the charge is only a vague charge. So far as charge No. (v) regarding receiving of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 4,85,00,000/-is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence about the same. It has been submitted that statement of co-accused was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, but he had not made any such allegation against this petitioner and thereafter, after about ten months, his statement was again recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein, the allegation has been made against this petitioner. It has been submitted that statement of co-accused was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, but he had not made any such allegation against this petitioner and thereafter, after about ten months, his statement was again recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein, the allegation has been made against this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has prayed for bail. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail submitting that even though the petitioner was not the member of the Tender Committee, but it has come during investigation that the petitioner had not finalized the tenders of two other suppliers. He had finalized only two tenders with dishonest intention. It has also been submitted that purchase order was made by the petitioner at exorbitant rates to favour a particular firm. It has also been submitted that for the said favour huge amount of Rs. 4,85,00,000/-was taken by the petitioner as illegal gratification and during investigation, the statement of co-accused Rajesh Kumar Fogla recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has been corroborated by collecting sufficient evidence. Learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out that statement of proprietor of other firm was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein, also it has come that the petitioner was paid illegal gratification of Rs.18,16,000/-by him. Learned Standing Counsel has also given a comparative chart of the tenders and the supply orders made to a particular firm, which shows that the purchase orders were made at exorbitant rates, much beyond the market purchase rates and in this manner, the State exchequers had been put to wrongful loss of Rs. 17,71,98,160/-and 13,6213600 in purchases of disinfectant, fogger machine, dispenser etc. Pointing out these materials against the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. This is a case where there are serious charges against a senior IAS Officer of the State, who was expected to safeguard the interests of the State. There are charges of making purchases illegally at highly inflated rates to the tune of Rs. 130,50,79,951.74/-, much beyond the budgetary allocation, and transmitting false expenditure report to the Government of India. 7. This is a case where there are serious charges against a senior IAS Officer of the State, who was expected to safeguard the interests of the State. There are charges of making purchases illegally at highly inflated rates to the tune of Rs. 130,50,79,951.74/-, much beyond the budgetary allocation, and transmitting false expenditure report to the Government of India. By way of these omissions, commissions and the purchases made, which were not at all need based, the petitioner had received huge commission of several crores rupees by way of illegal gratification. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the supply order was given without the approval of the petitioner, or that the petitioner was not the member of the Tender Committee, or that he was only one of the signatories in the expenditure report sent to the Govt. of India, are only the lame excuses, as the petitioner, being the Secretary, was the Head of the Department and was in full control over the entire matter. 8. Taking into consideration the serious nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, Dr. Pradeep Kumar, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Bail rejected.