Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 889 (GUJ)

Sonukumar Rambuj Maurya v. State of Gujarat

2019-10-10

ALPESH Y.KOGJE

body2019
ORDER : 1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No. I-3/2019 with Mehsana ACB Police Station, District Mehsana for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant being a Senior Section Engineer had nothing to do with the Contract for the which the alleged amount is received on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted that the amount of transactions are from bank to bank and that too where the applicant had lent money which was sought to be returned and these transactions are shown by the Investigating Agency to be the transactions in connection with the corrupt practice. It is submitted that there is no remote connection of the applicant with the complainant as no decision pertaining to the contract of the complainant was within the power or the authority of the applicant. It is further submitted by learned Advocate for the applicant that even if the allegations are taken at the face value, the entire evidence is based on documents - the bank transaction and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 3. As against this, it is submitted that the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is in full swing and the Agency has sufficient evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. It is submitted that the statement of the witnesses recorded in whose account the money has been transferred indicates transfer of such amount at the behest of the present applicant. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records of the case, wherein it appears that the FIR being I-CR No. 3 of 2019 came to be registered with the A.C.B. Police station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Section 7, 12 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pursuant to the complaint dated 29.07.2019 lodged by one Jayendrasinh Jivuji Zala. The present applicant has been arraigned as accused no. 1 in the aforesaid FIR and serious allegations have been by the complainant as regards demand of an amount of Rs. The present applicant has been arraigned as accused no. 1 in the aforesaid FIR and serious allegations have been by the complainant as regards demand of an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs as bribe amount towards commission of making M.B. (Management book) and against passing of bills of contract of construction of bridge. It appears that the applicant herein joined as Junior Engineer with Western Railway in the Year 2012 and thereafter was promoted as Senior Section Engineer, Class-III in the Year 2017. He was posted at Palanpur section, Western Railway, Mehsana and claims to have come in contact with the complainant since then. 5. It transpires that offers were invited from prospective bidders for tender of work of construction of under pass/tunnel for the railway line whereby the work order came to be allotted to one M/s. Ansari Erectors of Ahmedabad vide letter dated 20.11.2017. The actual work construction was undertaken by sub contractor Harshakti Constructions, of which the complainant was sole proprietor. The applicant as Senior Section Engineer was entrusted the job of inspection of work undertaken for which requisite details have to be entered in the record book/measurement book and upon such verification, bills raised, the amount of work order is to be released. Thus, the applicant being in charge as Senior Section Engineer has control over the work order to the extent that only upon his inspection and requisite verification of work order apropos amount is released. 6. It appears that during the course of investigation important material implicating the applicant as accused in the alleged offence has emerged and the same can be briefly summarised as under: (i) The applicant-accused no. 1 has forwarded the details of SBI, Sikkim branch account no. 20074352254, which belongs to the friend of accused namely Iqbal Ahmed. That an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been deposited by the complainant firm namely Harshakti Corporation through N.E.F.T. and I.M.P.S. transaction viz. Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 11.04.2019 by NEFT and Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 18.04.2019 by IMPS from I.C.I.C.I. Mehsana Branch account no. 025705500449. (ii) It further transpires that the applicant-original accused no. 1 has transferred an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 11.04.2019, through his friend Mohan Gupta account no. 3099123240 and thereafter an amount of Rs. 50,000/- dated 18.04.2019, has been transferred in the account of Harshakti Construction firm of complainant and as against that the accused has obtained Rs. 025705500449. (ii) It further transpires that the applicant-original accused no. 1 has transferred an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 11.04.2019, through his friend Mohan Gupta account no. 3099123240 and thereafter an amount of Rs. 50,000/- dated 18.04.2019, has been transferred in the account of Harshakti Construction firm of complainant and as against that the accused has obtained Rs. 1,50,000/- cash from complainant. (iii) It further transpires from the investigation that the applicant had demanded bribe amount for the work of witnesses working in the sublet namely Alkeshbhai Kantilal Sarvaidya and Brijeshbhai, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 11.04.2019 and Rs. 50,000/- has been transferred from the account no. 1280102000010928 of Brijeshbhai IDBI Bank, Sardar mall branch to account no. 309999123240 of friend of accused namely Mohan Gupta. (iv) It appears that the accused is trying to influence the investigation in as much as that he is trying to pressurize witness Hanubha through his relatives Vishnubhai Mevada and Laljibhai Desai. During the course of investigation one notarised affidavit executed by Mohan Gupta was received whereby it was stated that the accused herein has borrowed amount from Mohanbhai Gupta. That upon inquiry about said affidavit, the said Mohan Gupta has stated that he is not knowing Gujarati language and what is stated in affidavit is not the fact which was made understood to him. 7. The Court has perused the documents on record including the statement of the witnesses which indicates that there was no reason for the complainant to deposit the amount in the bank accounts of the witnesses with whom the applicant had no connection. From the statement of such witnesses, it is apparent that they have acted at the behest of the applicant in permitting their accounts to be utilized for transaction of the money and upon realization of such amount, the money was to be repaid to the present applicant. The statement also indicates that the applicant and these witnesses have studied in one College together in Diploma of Engineering and are now working in different Government organizations but seems to have coordinated with each other for entering into such corrupt practices. The statement of witness - Mohan Gupta dated 30.08.2019 indicates that he himself is Manager in Maharashtra Rail Infrastructure Development Corporation and had studied with the present applicant in Government Polytechnic, Gorakhpur in Civil Engineering between 2004 to 2007. 8. The statement of witness - Mohan Gupta dated 30.08.2019 indicates that he himself is Manager in Maharashtra Rail Infrastructure Development Corporation and had studied with the present applicant in Government Polytechnic, Gorakhpur in Civil Engineering between 2004 to 2007. 8. Considering the nature of offence, and the intricate ring that is established by the accused for the purpose of corrupt practice, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The Court has also perused the order passed by the Sessions Court wherein the Sessions Court has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the bail application of the applicant. 9. In view of the above, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and this application is rejected. Rule is discharged.