Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1169 (JHR)

Umashankar Kandhway v. Union Of India

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing fot 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. 1 (A) of 2013-D registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B 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 31-3-2013 wherein it was alleged that Shri 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 4-10-2010 in favour of Mr. D.K. Singh, Dhanbad for construction of 7 PCC roads, 5 drains, 2 boundary walls and laying of pipeline and tar-felting wor etc. in different collieries of Kustore Area of BCCL, Dhanbad. 4. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was implicated on the ground that it was his responsibility for ensuring strict compliance of laid down procedures of BCCL in processing the files related to civil contract work. Learned senior counsel submits that the further allegation against the petitioner is that he had not ensured budget allocation for the 16 number of civil work from the BCCL Headquarters. The financial concurrence numbers were also not verified by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that in absence of Area Finance Manager, it is a normal practice for the in-charge to recommend necessary filed on behest of the Area Finance Manager. The financial concurrence numbers were also not verified by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that in absence of Area Finance Manager, it is a normal practice for the in-charge to recommend necessary filed on behest of the Area Finance Manager. Learned senior counsel also submits that the entire process had been completed before the petitioner was handed over the charge of Area Finance Manager and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for the process related to the 16 number of work orders. 5. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand has stated that apart from not ensuring budget allocation for the 16 numbers of civil work from BCCL Headquarters, he had also not checked the financial concurrence numbers and in connivance of the other BCCL officials had prepared the indents for release of the funds. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was also responsible in making double payment for similar work against work order number 761 to Kumbh Nath Singh. 6. The basic allegation against the petitioner seems to be the fact that being the Area Finance Manager, he did not ensure budget allocation for the capital work and did not get the approval from the BCCL Headquarters. The petitioner is further said to have prepared the indents for release of the funds of all the said work and had not checked the financial concurrence numbers. The said fact cannot lead to a conclusion that it was a deliberate act of conspiracy on the part of the petitioner as the Chief General Manager was also being prosecuted by the CBI for approving the work without getting the budgetary allocation, which has been considered by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 506 of 2015 and the entire criminal proceedings as against him were quashed. The financial concurrence numbers were fraudulently without approval prepared by the accused Deb Kamal Ghosh and Md. Bikau and if at all the petitioner had not checked the financial concurrence numbers, the same cannot be said to be a conspiracy on the part of the petitioner to defraud the company. The preparation of indents and release of funds are part of the nature of job and it cannot be pointed out that such preparation was only with respect to giving financial benefits to Kumbh Nath Singh. 7. The preparation of indents and release of funds are part of the nature of job and it cannot be pointed out that such preparation was only with respect to giving financial benefits to Kumbh Nath Singh. 7. In such circumstances, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and 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, 1973.