Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 727 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-08

JAYA ROY

body2012
Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471/ of the I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. i.e. R.C. 8A/ 2010 (R). 3. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Sr. counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the present A.B.A. No. 4337 of 2011 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.02.2012 passed by this court. 4. The petitioner has filed the instant I.A.(Cr.) No. 607 of 2012 for modification of the order dated 16.02.2012 on the principle of equity with the other co-accused in the same case as in case of co-accused namely Prakash Chandra Singh in A.B.A. No. 97 of 2012 by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2012 while rejecting his prayer for anticipatory bail has given an observation that if the co-accused surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same to be consider in the light of submission that the petitioner is ready to deposit the money not in entirely but to the extent which would be reasonable taking into account that five accused persons have been alleged to have misappropriated the amount. The counsel of the petitioner has prayed for the same observation as the present petitioner is also ready to deposit the amount and to modify the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2012 passed in this case to the extent as stated above. 5. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, the learned counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that when this court after hearing the matter was going to dismiss this application, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the application. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. Mr. Khan has further submitted that the present petitioner namely Manoj Kumar Bhagat in conspiracy with the other accused persons filed an affidavit mentioning therein that he was entrusted with some work in the year, 2003-2004 vide Agreement No. 27F2/2003-04 and 15F2/2004-05 for Jama-Jamtara Road and Rupnarayanpur Road for 97 and 102 K.M. but the work could not be completed. Therefore, he had given 21 drums of bitumen of M/S P.K.S, and company and later on during the investigation IOCL informed that the name of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Bhagat did not exist in the list of the names of the customers. Therefore, he had given 21 drums of bitumen of M/S P.K.S, and company and later on during the investigation IOCL informed that the name of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Bhagat did not exist in the list of the names of the customers. It clearly shows that the petitioner dishonestly submitted the said affidavit mentioning incorrect facts to facilitate payment to the accused contractor concerned on the basis of the bogus claim for which causing loss to the government for a huge amount. 6. Mr. Khan has further submitted that in similar type of case the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the regular bail of the Assistant Engineer who has approved the fake invoices submitted for the bitumen even after remaining in the custody for a one year i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.1034 of 2012 Manish Kumar – Vrs-C.B.I. vide order dated 02.03.2012. 7. Considering the fact that there is a direct allegation against the petitioner and charge sheet has been submitted against him and in view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court , I am not inclined to modify the order dated 16.02.2012 passed in this application as stated above. Accordingly the aforesaid I.A. No. 607 of 2012 is, hereby, rejected.