Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 457 (JHR)

Suresh Prasad Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-02

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I., however his name transpired in the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I. along with twelve other co-accused persons. It has been alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner while working as General Manager, Kustore area during the period from September, 2009 to 2011, he was responsible for the strict compliance of the laid down procedure of BCCL/CIL in the civil contract works in BCCL. He being the General Manager, did not point out that all the subject works (being the capital civil works) required either approval of concerned Director or the approval of the BCCL Board. Further, the petitioner did not ascertain the actual requirement of the said civil works. He approved the recommendations of the Tender Committee Members in respect of all the 16 files related to civil works without offering his comments. It has also been alleged that the petitioner out of a criminal conspiracy kept pending the recommendations of the Tender Committee (which was given in December, 2009) till 27th January, 2010 and got the same approved by the Additional General Manager Sri J. Chandra on 28th January, 2010. Further allegation against the petitioner is that he did not get budget allocation for the said works from BCCL Headquarters and without the same, the work orders were issued in all the said works. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not ensure that the payments to the contractors should not have been made without execution of the said works. It has further been alleged that the petitioner did not ensure the double payments of Rs. 07,49,818/- (rupees seven lac forty nine thousand eight hundred eighteen) should not have been made to the contractor against the same work order. 4. It has further been alleged that the petitioner did not ensure the double payments of Rs. 07,49,818/- (rupees seven lac forty nine thousand eight hundred eighteen) should not have been made to the contractor against the same work order. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for laying down of strict procedure in the civil contract works in BCCL is concerned, the same is generalized one and suffers from vagueness. The allegation that the petitioner failed to point out that all the subject works being the capital civil works require either approval of concerned Director or approval of the BCCL Board, the same is true only if the value is more than Rs.5 lacs and it is not mentioned in the action plan. In this regard the relevant admission is contained in the charge-sheet itself. Learned senior counsel also submits that no such requirement or responsibility on part of the petitioner can be attributed. The ascertainment (about actual requirement of the work) was the look out of the person holding the post at the relevant time, namely the petitioner''s predecessor Shri A.K. Sengupta who purportedly carried out the exercise which led to initiation of the process. The allegation that the petitioner approved the recommendation of the Tender Committee Members in respect of all the 16 files related to civil works without offering his comments, is misleading and suppression of the relevant fact. The petitioner had never approved the recommendations of the Tender Committee. So far as the allegation that under conspiracy, the petitioner kept pending the recommendations of Tender Committee till January, 2010, is concerned the same is totally incorrect and is baseless being based on no material gathered during investigation. In fact, the petitioner never received the said file. The allegation that the petitioner got the Tender Committee''s aforesaid recommendation approved by the A.G.M. Shri J. Chandra on 28.01.2010, is totally false. In fact, on 28.01.2010, the petitioner was on leave and Shri J. Chandra, Additional General Manager was in his charge. In fact Shri J. Chandra, A.G.M. was also a member of the Tender Committee which comprised of 3 members namely Shri Deb Kamal Ghosh, Finance Manager as the Finance Representative, Shri J. Chandra, AGM as the Mining Representative and Shri V.K. Thakur, Chief Manager (Civil) as the Civil Representative. In fact Shri J. Chandra, A.G.M. was also a member of the Tender Committee which comprised of 3 members namely Shri Deb Kamal Ghosh, Finance Manager as the Finance Representative, Shri J. Chandra, AGM as the Mining Representative and Shri V.K. Thakur, Chief Manager (Civil) as the Civil Representative. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.09.2016 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted, he may be granted the privilege of regular bail. 5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. while relying on the allegation made against the petitioner in the charge-sheet submits that the petitioner being the General Manager of Kustore area, BCCL at the relevant time was fully responsible for strictly observing the laid down procedures of the BCCL/ CIL. However he, in criminal conspiracy with other officers/officials of BCCL and the concerned contractors allowed the execution of 16 different civil works without any budgetary allocation which finally caused a loss of Rs. 01,20,95,428/-(rupees one crore twenty lac ninety five thousand four hundred twenty eight) to the BCCL /CIL. The petitioner being one of the main conspirators in putting huge financial loss to the BCCL /CIL, may not be granted the privilege of regular bail. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, named above, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in connection with RC-01(A)/2013 (D), subject to the condition that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the court, failing which the learned trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with the law.