Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7827 of 2015 ---- Kishor Yadav @ Kishore Yadav, S/o late Kedar Yadav, Resident of Flat No.203, Sukhdham Heights, Behind Ray Talkies, Bank More, Dhanbad, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI) .....Opposite Party ---- Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate ----- 10/12.01.2016 Heard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I. In this application, the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with R.C. 13(A)/2012-D registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B/409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected in B.A. No. 2075 of 2015 on 22.07.2015. The allegation made in the FIR is that during surprise check, the measurement of coal stock maintained at Kuya Open Cast Project, Bastacola Area, BCCL,Dhanbad was undertaken during the period 22.08.2011 to 24.08.2011 by the Vigilance Department of BCCL and it was detected that there was shortage of coal to the tune of 4,24,871 metric ton. The approximate cost of misappropriated coal came to around Rs.48,86,01,650/-, causing wrongful loss to BCCL and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioner and in the chargesheet, the role of the petitioner has been assigned to the effect that petitioner was working in the capacity of Manager, Kuya Open Cast Project, Bastacola Area, BCCL, Dhanbad and thereafter as Manager/Project Officer-cum Manager of KOCP during the period 3.3.2008 to 15.11.2009 and from 16.11.2009 to 20.06.2011 and he was duty bound for production of coal, removal of overburden etc. of the Project and he was liable and responsible for maintenance of coal and also for shortage of coal beyond the permissible limit of (+/-)5% of book stock. -2- Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that after the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 22.07.2015 in B.A. No. 2075 of 2015, in a similar case in similar circumstances, bail has been granted by this Court to one Kanhaiya Singh in B.A. No.5216 of 2015 vide order dated 18.08.2015, which arose out of RC1(A) of 2011-D. It has been submitted that co-accused Kanhaiya Singh was also entrusted with the authority to act as an administrative head of the area establishment and was also responsible for coal stock of the area in question. Learned senior counsel has further pointed out to the similarity in RC1(A) of 2011-D and R.C. 13(A)/2012-D to suggest that when on similar circumstances, co-accused Kanhaiya Singh has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No.5216 of 2015, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. It has further been submitted that infact in RC Case No. 1(A) of 2011-D, although accused persons have been granted bail and infact in the case of one of the co-accused namely Adish Yadav, this Court had taken into consideration that none of the CISF Personnels were examined in course of investigation to ascertain the illegal transportation of coal made outside the coal mines by the petitioner and the other co- accused persons. Learned senior counsel further submits that a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner, in which he was exonerated. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 2nd March, 2015 and there is no prospect of any progress in trial and in such circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for C.B.I., has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting at the outset that the allegation in R.C. Case No. 13(A)/2012-D, in which the present petitioner is an accused, cannot be equated with the allegations made in RC Case No. 1(A) of 2011-D, as both arise out of shortage in coal stock found at different collieries. It has been submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was the Manager/Project Officer-cum Manager of KOCP and it was his duty and responsibility for maintenance of coal stock and any shortage beyond the permissible limit of (+/-)5% of book stock as per the Code for Uniform System of Maintenance, Control and Verification of Coal Stock of the colliery in all mines of CIL( commonly known as Yellow -3- Book), the petitioner can be held directly responsible for such shortage/misappropriation. It has further been submitted that on account of misdeeds of the petitioner, BCCL was caused a wrongful loss to the tune of approximately Rs. 49 crores. Learned counsel has also submitted that the bail application of other accused persons pertaining to R.C. Case No. 13(A)/2012-D has been rejected by this Court and there is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. From perusal of the order dated 22.07.2015, passed in B.A. No. 2075 of 2015 while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, it had been held thus:- "The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Annexure-3 goes against the submission of the petitioner, as on one hand, the submission of learned counsel is that the coal was actually not produced and the loss calculated on notional quantity was only on assumption, whereas, on the other hand, it is submitted that the coal stock as per the book stock was handed over to the incoming Manager by the petitioner. Both these arguments cannot go together". Apart from what has been indicated in the order dated 22.07.2015, passed in earlier bail application, it is further revealed that the petitioner was incharge of maintaining the coal stock and such misappropriation/shortage of coal stock can be directly attributable to the petitioner. So far as the reference, which has been made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in respect of similarly situated co-accused persons having been granted bail, the same are admittedly with respect to RC Case No. 1(A) of 2011-D and not R.C. Case No. 13(A)/2012-D and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be given any benefit with respect to grant of bail to the said accused persons of another case. As has been held above, since there is direct allegation against the petitioner of misappropriation to the tune of Rs.49 crores and after considering the same, his prayer for bail was rejected and there being no fresh ground to reconsider his prayer for bail, the same is accordingly rejected. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/