Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1174 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar Thakur v. Union Of India

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned senior 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 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 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 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 tarfelting work etc. in different collieries of Kustore Area of BCCL, Dhanbad. 4. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that tenders for the 16 number of work were invited in the month of September, 2009 and at that time, the petitioner was posted at Northern Coal Field Ltd. Learned Senior counsel submits that petitioner was never involved in certification and processing of bills and for release of payments. It has also been submitted that though the petitioner was a member of the Tender Committee, but during his tenure he has only participated in opening the second part of the tender i.e. price bid and pursuant to opening of the tenders the work order was issued by the Committee to the Contractor whose bid was found to be the lowest. The learned senior counsel thus submits that considering the limited role of the petitioner, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner was one of the members of the Tender Committee and did not ascertain as to whether budget allocation from BCCL Headquarters have been taken or not. 6. It appears that the investigating agency has come to a conclusion that the petitioner being one of the Tender Committee Members had not ensured or ascertained as to whether budget allocation of the said order has been taken from the BCCL Headquarters or not. The petitioner as it seems has also not ascertained as to whether the financial concurrence numbers given by the Finance Department was given by the competent authority or not. Further allegation against the petitioner is that he has not issued any reminder to the contractor for completion of the work as per the terms and conditions in the work order. By the time the petitioner had issued a reminder, the payments were already made. As has been the case with most of the accused persons, the petitioner being a Tender Committee Members being sought to be prosecuted for carrying on the Tender process without ensuring as to whether budget allocation has been given by the Board of BCCL or not. 7. Similar allegation has been levelled against the co-accused A.K. Sengupta, the then Chief Manager of the Kustore Area and the case of the said petition was quashed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 506 of 2015. Even otherwise if the tender process had started without following the norms as laid down, the same in all circumstances cannot be considered to mean that it was a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the petitioner in providing benefit to Kumbh Nath Singh. The financial concurrence number had been given by the other accused persons named in the charge-sheet and the petitioner is said to have not verified whether the same is genuine or not. That may be an aberration on the part of the petitioner and only on such score alone, the petitioner cannot be hauled up to be a part of the conspirator defrauding BCCL. 8. Such circumstances therefore, entitles the petitioner grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed. 9. That may be an aberration on the part of the petitioner and only on such score alone, the petitioner cannot be hauled up to be a part of the conspirator defrauding BCCL. 8. Such circumstances therefore, entitles the petitioner grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed. 9. In the circumstances, 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.