JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Deo, learned A.P.P. for the CBI. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with R. C. Case No. 01(A) of 2013-D registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 419, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. An FIR was instituted by the CBI on 31.03.2013 wherein it was alleged that Sri V. K. Thakur, the then Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil), Sri R. P. Singh, the then Sr. Executive Engineer (Civil), Sri B. K. Thakur, the then Engineering Assistant (Civil)/Subordinate Engineer (Civil), Sri A. Pathak, the then Subordinate Engineer (Civil), Sri Deb Kamal Ghosh, the then Finance Manager, Sri S. K. Bandhopadhya, the then Finance Manager – all of erstwhile Kustore Area, BCCL, Dhanbad along with unknown persons during the period 2008-11 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sri Kumbh Nath Singh, purported proprietor of M/s, D. K. Singh, Dhanbad and his brother Sri Lal Babu Singh to do an illegal act with a view to cheat and defraud BCCL Ltd. It is alleged that pursuant to the conspiracy by abusing their official position, the accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently issued 16 number of work orders dated 04.10.2010 in favour of Mr. D. K. Singh, Dhanbad for construction of 7 PCC roads, 5 drains, 2 boundary walls and laying of pipeline and tarfelting work etc. in different collieries of Kustore Area of BCCL, Dhanbad. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had dealt with 16 files on 29.05.2009 and approved the proposal of budget certification for capital work without any authority. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never given any approval for budget certification on 29.05.2009. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had put certain conditions in the file. It has also been stated that before preparing an estimate of capital civil work, approval has to be given by the Board of Directors of BCCL. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had only made provisional budget availability and had not approved the final budget allocation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had put certain conditions in the file. It has also been stated that before preparing an estimate of capital civil work, approval has to be given by the Board of Directors of BCCL. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had only made provisional budget availability and had not approved the final budget allocation. Learned counsel further submits that files were never sent to the Project and Planning Department and therefore, the culpability of the petitioner could not be established. 6. It has been stated by Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel for the CBI that the petitioner did not have any separate allocation of power and could only indicate the budget from the approved list on capital work. It has been stated that the petitioner in stead of sending file to the concerned Director at BCCL Headquarters had taken decision in the matter at his own level and under conspiracy did not allow entry of the said file in the Project and Planning Department and disposed of the file on a single day. It has thus been submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 7. The petitioner as it seems was working as Chief Manager, Project and Planning Department, BCCL Headquarters. The petitioner it seems had never given any approval for budget certification on 29.05.2009, but as could be ascertained, the petitioner had put 3 conditions to get the approval. It further appears that the files were never sent back to the Project and Planning Department, BCCL Headquarters, Koylanagar for getting a budget allocation from the petitioner. Investigation has also revealed that after the approval of the Area General Manager, the files were never marked to anyone, but financial concurrence no. was given by accused no. 2 and accused no. 12 and thereafter, the work orders were issued by the accused no. 1 in favour of D. K. Singh. It is thus clear that the petitioner had put certain conditions in the file dated 29.05.2009 and subsequent thereto the files after being given a financial concurrence number led to issuance of work orders in favour of M/s. D. K. Singh. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, this application is allowed. 9. 1 in favour of D. K. Singh. It is thus clear that the petitioner had put certain conditions in the file dated 29.05.2009 and subsequent thereto the files after being given a financial concurrence number led to issuance of work orders in favour of M/s. D. K. Singh. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, this application is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, he shall 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, CBI cum Additional Sessions Judge XI, Dhanbad in connection with R. C. Case No. 01(A) of 2013-D, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Application allowed.