Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1270 (JHR)

J. C. Enterprises v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-26

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. - Today when the case is called out, an I.A. Dated 19.07.2017 has been filed in ABA No. 1774/2017. Office is directed to put Number on it, make diary entry of the same and tag it with the record. 2. Since all the anticipatory bail applications arose from the same FIR, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. ABA No. 1124/2017 has been filed by M/S J.C. Enterprises through its proprietor-Kamal Kumar Jhunjhunwala. 4. ABA No. 1128/2017 has been filed by Raunak Raj. 5. ABA No. 1774/2017 has been filed by Narendra Butala @ Narendra Manilal Butala, who is Director of M/S Park Sarwa Mangla Projects (P) Ltd. 6. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with RC 11 (A)/2014-R, the case registered under Sections 120B r/w Section 420/471/468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. 7. It appears that in ABA No. 1774/2017 the CBI after investigation has submitted final form on 30.11.2016, which reveals that the Central University of Jharkhand (in short C.U.J.), Ranchi was established in 2009 and it started functioning from its rented campus at Brambe, Ranchi. For development of the permanent campus of the University, State Govt. of Jharkhand allotted 319.28 hectares of land to C.U.J. 8. The investigation has further disclosed that Shri. N.P. Garg (petitioner) in conspiracy with Shri. D.T. Khathing and in absence of complete master plan invited Expression of Interest (in short EOI) on 22.10.2011 for empanelment and award of work of construction of different buildings at the permanent campus at Cheri-Manatu, Ranchi. 9. The investigation further reveals that as per the NIT dated 22.10.2011 the civil/internal electrification/HAVC/Services works were divided into four categories for empanelment of the contractors i.e. Group A (works valued above Rs. 25 crores), Group B (works valued between Rs. 10 crores to Rs. 25 crores), Group C (works valued between Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 10 crores) and Group D (works valued between Rs. 3 crores to Rs. 5 crores). In the NIT published, no specific criteria was spelt out for empanelment of the contractors. The only condition was that the party should be technically and financially sound and have completed the assigned projects in time bound manner without escalation. 10. 5 crores to Rs. 10 crores) and Group D (works valued between Rs. 3 crores to Rs. 5 crores). In the NIT published, no specific criteria was spelt out for empanelment of the contractors. The only condition was that the party should be technically and financially sound and have completed the assigned projects in time bound manner without escalation. 10. The investigation further reveals that as part of the conspiracy to award the Building Construction work to the favoured firms, a comparative chart was prepared by the concerned accused officers of C.U.J, Ranchi for empanelment of Group A, B, C & D contractors in which CPWD was deliberately excluded. It further reveals that under Group-C contractors, namely, M/s. Raj Construction, M/s. Mourya Heritage, M/s. J.C. Enterprises (petitioner in ABA No. 1124/2017) and M/s. Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. were L-1 after post tender negotiation who quoted 54% above DSR-2007 and instead of re-tendering, the accused public servants awarded the same or several types of works, i.e Civil Works/Electrical Works at different rates, i.e. 56% above DSR-2007 in Group-B, 54% above DSR-2007 in Group-C and 49% above DSR-2007 in Group-D. 11. In ABA No. 1128/2017, the petitioner,namely, Raunak Raj, who is partner of M/s. R.K. Mishra & Co., Ranchi and he is Group-C contractor and he was awarded the work at the rate of 54% above DSR-2007, which causes wrongful loss to the University. 12. In ABA No. 1774 of 2017, the petitioner, namely, Narendra Butala @ Narendra Manilal Butala, who is Director of M/S Park Sarwa Mangla Projects (P) Ltd. and according to C.B.I. The above named petitioner was L-1 after post tender negotiation who had quoted 56% above DSR-2007. But instead of re-tendering, the accused public servants awarded several types of work i.e. civil works/electrical works to this petitioner at the rate of 50% above DSR-2007 in Group-B. It was further submitted by the CBI that the Minutes of the 11th meeting of the Building Committee held on 27.01.2012 in which the work awarded to different categories were shown approved by the Building Committee, which was issued under the signature of Shri D.T. Khathing, who was Chairman of the Building Committee. It was further submitted that Shri Khathing had made corrections in the draft in his own hand writing and the same was not confirmed by other members of the 12th meeting of the Building Committee held on 09.02.2012. Although it was observed by the members that the master plan had not yet been finalized and it was resolved that re-tender be called for selection of builders. 13. Further, although the learned counsel for the CBI has filed counter-affidavit but vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that due to omission and commission committed by the petitioners the wrongful loss occurring to the University on this count tabulated below. Sl. No. Name of the Party Group and Rate at which work awarded Payment made (in Rs. ) Wrongful loss on account of rates being higher than L-1 (49%) (in Rs. ) 1 M/s. Rock Drill India Group 'B' 56% 8,23,85,588/- 57,66,991/- 2 M/s. Sadanand Gupta Group 'B' 56% 13,23,65,910/- 92,65,613/- 3 M/s. Park Sarva Mangla Projects Pvt. Ltd. Group 'B' 56% 6,80,97,706/- 47,66,839/- 4 M/s. J.C. Enterprises Group 'C' 54% 6,61,06,885/- 33,05,344/- 5 M/s. Raj Construction Group 'C' 54% 3,41,83,112/- 17,09,155/- 6 M/s. Mourya Heritage Inn Pvt. Ltd. Group 'C' 54% 6,11,54,182/- 30,57,709/- 7 M/s. R.K. Mishra and Company Group 'C' 54% 6,88,45,700/- 34,42,285/- 8 M/s. Bharat Drilling & Treatment Pvt. Ltd. Group 'C' 54% 8,70,50,076/- 43,52,503/- Hence petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 14. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and also taking into account that some of the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail on 29.06.2017 in ABA No. 1057/2017 and analogous cases with a direction to them that they shall fully co-operate with the CBI and also appear physically on each and every date before the trial court till framing of charge if they want exemption from appearance, they will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from the trial court they may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial and they shall deposit their Passport, if any, before the trial court. 15. Further, it appears that during the course of investigation these petitioners have never been arrested by the CBI and they are ready to appear before the court below on each and every date and will co-operate in the investigation. 16. 15. Further, it appears that during the course of investigation these petitioners have never been arrested by the CBI and they are ready to appear before the court below on each and every date and will co-operate in the investigation. 16. Be that as it may, since the final form has been submitted by the CBI and cognizance has been taken and the trial will take some time for its completion, I am inclined to admit all the petitioners on bail and the above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in connection with RC 11 (A)/2014-R, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and also subject to the further condition that petitioners shall fully co-operate with the CBI and also appear physically on each and every date before the trial court till framing of charge, if not framed till date and if they want exemption from appearance, they will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from the trial court they may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial and they shall deposit their Passport, if any, before the trial court. 17. The petitioner,namely, Narendra Butala @ Narendra Manilal Butala (in ABA No. 1774/2017) by filing Interlocutory Application dated 19.07.2017 has stated in para-5 of the said application that his daughter,namely, Ruchi Butala Bhar W/o Sourav Bhar is presently residing in USA with her husband at 13631 Mariposa St. Broomfield and she is pregnant and the expected date of delivery is 21.11.2017 which is evident from the medical certificate issued by the concerned hospital. So he along with his wife wants to attend his daughter and also wants exemption from deposition of Passport before the trial court for the period from 01.09.2017 to 15.01.2018, as mentioned at para-8 of the said application. 18. So he along with his wife wants to attend his daughter and also wants exemption from deposition of Passport before the trial court for the period from 01.09.2017 to 15.01.2018, as mentioned at para-8 of the said application. 18. Although the Standing counsel for the CBI has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner but considering the aforesaid humanitarian ground of the petitioner, the prayer made by the petitioner is allowed and he is permitted to go to USA to look after her daughter during the aforesaid period as stated in paragraph nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9, subject to the condition that immediately after returning from USA, he will deposit his passport etc in the trial court within 7 days from the date of his last stay at USA i.e. 15.01.2018. 19. The trial court is directed to submit a report regarding the date of deposition of passport by the petitioner,namely, Narendra Butala @ Narendra Manilal Butala (in ABA No. 1774/2017) within the stipulated period i.e. within 7 days from the date of his last stay at USA which is 15.01.2018, so that if the petitioner, namely, Narendra Butala @ Narendra Manilal Butala fails to do so, then appropriate order may be passed. 20. List ABA No. 1774/2017 under the heading for "Orders" immediately after receipt of required report, if any, filed by the trial court regarding submission of passport by the petitioner, namely, Narendra Butala @ Narendra Manilal Butala (in ABA No. 1774/2017). I.A. Dated 19.07.2017 filed in ABA No. 1774/2017 stands disposed of.