Judgment:1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 1057 of 2017 Jagdish Prasad …… Petitioner Versus The C.B.I (A.C.B.) through Superintendent of Police, Ranchi…… Opposite Party with A.B. A. No. 1008 of 2017 Sanjay Kumar Singh …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party with A.B. A. No. 1012 of 2017 Anil Kumar Singh …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate (in A.B.A. No.1057 of 2017) Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mohit Mani Kishore, Advocate (in A.B.A. No. 1008 of 2017) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (in A.B.A. No. 1012 of 2017) For the C.B.I : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate C.A.V. On: 21/06/2017 Pronounced on 29/06/2017 Since all the three anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C 11(A)/2014R for the offence registered under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the court of Shri B.K. Tiwary, Special Judge, C.B. I(A.C.B), Ranchi. The case of prospection, in short, is that one S.K. Khare, Superintendent of Police/HOB, C.B.I, AC.B, Ranchi got information from reliable source that one Shri Darlando Thanmi Khathing, the then Vice Chancellor, Central University of Jharkhand (CUJ), Ranchi Jharkhand, Narendra Lal Garg, OSD (Project, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Sanjay Kumar Singh, the then Civil Engineer, 2 Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Abhay Nindkan Tigga, then then Electrical Engineer, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi entered into a criminal conspiracy with the proprietors/Directors/ Partners of 12 private firms, viz, M/s Rock Drill India, Ranchi, M/s Sadanand Gupta, Ranchi, M/s Park Sarva Mangala Project, Ranchi, M/s J.C. Enterprises, Ranchi, M/s Raj construction, Garhwa, M/s Mourya Heritage Inn Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi and others during the period 2010 to 2014 and committed the offences of cheating and criminal misconduct and in pursuance thereof, cheated the Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi by causing to it a wrongful loss of Rs. 7,11,89,770/(approx) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves, in the matter of award of construction works of different buildings for the permanent campus of Central University of Jharkhand by abusing their official position and awarding the works at exorbitant rates to the said firms. It is further alleged that the above mentioned public servants of Central University of Jharkhand entered into conspiracy with 12 firms awarded the work of construction of different buildings to the said firms at exorbitant rats and fraudulently made payment of Rs. 93,94,77,420/ to them and cheated the Central University of Jharkhand to the tune of Rs. 7,11,89,776/ as a result of fraudulent payment made to those firms. Thus, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi was put to a wrongful loss of Rs. 7,11,89,776/ and corresponding wrongful gain was made by the accused firms. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged. A.B.A. No. 1057 of 2017 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerJagdish Prasad has submitted that the Bharat Dirlling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd is a Private Ltd. Company and registered under the Companies Act, 1856 in which the petitioner is one of the Director of the said company. Further, it has been submitted that C.B.I after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet 3 vide Chargesheet No. 13/16 dated 30.11.2016. It has also been submitted that it was specifically mentioned in the said notice inviting tender that there is four categories for empanelment which are as follows: Sl. No. Group Nature of work Estimated Value E.M1A Civil/Internal Above 25 Crores 5 lacs Electrification/ H.A.V.C/Service s 2 B Civil/Internal 10 Crores to 25 3.5 Lacs Electrification/ crores H.A.V.C/Service s 3 C Civil/Internal 5 Crores to 10 2.5 Lacs Electrification/ Crores H.A.V.C/Service s 4 D Civil/Internal 3 Crores to 5 1 Lac Electrification/ Crores H.A.V.C/Service s It has also been submitted that as per the said notice inviting tender, the petitioner's company had applied for empanelment in GroupC vide his letter dated 15.11.2011 and also deposited the Earnest money through demand draft being No. 955305 dated 15.11.2011 in favour of Central University of Jharkhand. It is further submitted that as per the direction of the Central University of Jharkhand vide his letter dated 21.01.2012, the petitioner's company submitted its quotation i.e. Annexure 1, as per the rate based on DSR 2007 for civil and electrical and the said company had quoted 58% above of the DSR ,2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure 9 and 9/1 and has submitted that after negotiation, the petitioner's company did the construction work 54% above of DSR, 2007 but at the relevant time, Government of India issued the office memorandum dated 28.12.2011 to which the Government has approved rate for Ranchi is 158 ie. Above 58% of the DSR 2007 as well as during the period of contract agreement, the Government of 4 India, vide its letter dated 03.07.2012 issued fresh guideline and hike in the construction rate i.e. 174 above of DSR 2007. It is further submitted that after negotiation vide letter dated 12.03.2013, the Central University of Jharkhand has sent offer to the petitioner's company to do a work under the GroupC at the rate of 54% above over DSR 2007 for civil and internal electrification works duly approved by the competent authority. Further, it has been submitted that as per the allegation made against him that due to the act of the petitioner, the Central University of Jharkhand has suffered wrongful loss of Rs. 43,52,503/ but as a matter of fact, the Central University of Jharkhand is a defaulter of the petitioner for not paying the lawful claim of the petitioner for the construction work done by him for an amount of Rs. 11,24,93,106/ as such due to the meanness of the Central University of Jharkhand, the petitioner has suffered heavy loss. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner bringing on record the final form. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been submitted, the petitioner has never been arrested during investigation and cooperated with the investigation and Trial will take some time. Considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counteraffidavit. Referring to para 14 & 15 of the counteraffidavit, learned standing counsel has submitted that under GroupC, M/s Raj Construction, M/S Mourya Heritage, M/S J.C. Enterprises and M/s Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd wer L1 after post tender negotiation who quoted 54% above DSR2007. Further, it has been submitted that under GroupD, M/s B.P. Construction was L1 who quoted 49% DSR 2007. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. 5 A.B.A. No. 1008 of 2017 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Singh has submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner was posted as Civil Engineer, C.U and now he has been retired. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner has got his family and property within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court. Further, it has been submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that he participated in preparation of the comparative chart for the empanelment of contractors and he prepared the measurement books and countersigned the bills, so far as the first allegation is concerned, the same was only a ministerial act on part of the petitioner and his role was only to prepare a chart based upon the date available from the records of the socalled tender. The allegation of conspiracy behind the petitioner so doing his task is baseless and without any material, secondly this allegation would equally apply upon Shri A.N. Tigga, the then Electrical Engineer, C.U.. So far as the second allegation is concerned, namely preparation of measurement book and countersigning the bills, it is patently erroneous to fasten any criminality upon the petitioner. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner should not be treated as public servant. There is no allegation against the petitioner having made any misrepresentation so as to constitutie deception within the meaning of Section 420 I.P.C. There is no allegation of dishonestly or fraudulently including anyone. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been submitted, the petitioner has never been arrested during investigation and Trial will take some time. Considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counteraffidavit and referring to the various paras of the counteraffidavit, counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that 6 the petitioner is signatory to the comparative chart prepared by for empanelment of Group A contractors in which CP.WD was deliberately excluded on the false ground that it charges 27.5% of the capital value of the work as agency charge because of which the cost of the project would increase by 25% and further CU would have no role to play. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. A.B.A. NO. 1012 of 2017 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Anil Kumar Singh has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was served with a notice on 23.09.2015 to appears before the Investigating Authority, after receiving notice, the petitioner appeared at the office of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I Ranchi on 25.09.2015 and fully cooperated with the Investigating Officer. it has been submitted that C.B.I after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet. It has also been submitted that as per the notice inviting tender specifically mentions that there is four categories for empanelment of contractor/builder which are as follows: Sl. No. Group Nature of work Estimated Value E.M1A Civil/Internal Above 25 Crores 5 lacs Electrification/ H.A.V.C/Service s 2 B Civil/Internal 10 Crores to 25 3.5 Lacs Electrification/ crores H.A.V.C/Service s 3 C Civil/Internal 5 Crores to 10 2.5 Lacs Electrification/ Crores H.A.V.C/Service s 4 D Civil/Internal 3 Crores to 5 1 Lac Electrification/ Crores H.A.V.C/Service s The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after negotiation vide 7 letter dated 07.02.2012, the Central University of Jharkhand has sent offer to the petitioner's firm to do a work under the Group 'C' at the rate of 54% above over DSR 2007 for civil and internal electrification works duly approved by the competent authority of such work. Further, it has been submitted that on 22.11.2013 a certificate was given by Central University of Jharkhand wherein it was certified that work done by M/s Raj Construction was found satisfactory and about 70% work was found to be completed and further it was observed that the remaining work is under progress. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner's company has sent letter dated 30.11/2014 to the ViceChancellor, Central University of Jharkhand for payment of 5th R/A (Prefinal) bill amounting to Rs. 2.75, but the same has not been paid by the said University till date. It has also been submitted that after negotiation, the petitioner's firm did the construction work 54% above of DSR 2007, but at that relevant time, Government of India issued the office memorandum dated 28.12.2011 in which the Government has approved rate for Ranchi is 158 ie above 58% of the PAR of DSR 2007. It has also been submitted that as per allegation, the petitioner has obtained the work 5% above of the L1 rate, as such, Central University of Jharkhand has suffered wronglful loss of Rs. 17,09,155/. As a matter of fact, contractor of Group 'D' has given a negotiated rate of 49% above of DSR 2007 and the contractors of Group 'D' are empowered to do a work from RS. 35 crore, but the petitioner's company has been empanelled under Group C and he is empowered to do a construction work from Rs. 510 crore. Both categories are different and work was also to be done on different design and drawing. So, it cannot be said that both the categories were having the same work to be done. It is also implied by the Notice Inviting Tender that Group “C' has to do work upto Rs. 510 crore and Group 'D' has to do work from R. 35 crore. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been 8 submitted, cognizance has been taken, the petitioner has never been arrested during investigation and Trial will take some time. Considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counteraffidavit. Referring to various paras of the counteraffidavit affidavit, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, final form, material collected by the C.B.I against the petitioners and also the fact that final form has been submitted in this case, cognizance has been taken, trial will take some time, during investigation these petitioners co operated in the investigation and they were never arrested by the I.O, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, they 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 the court of Sri B.K. Tiwary, learned Special Judge, C.B.I (A.C.B.), Ranchi in connection with R.C11(A)/2014R, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to further condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of Ranchi district. Petitioners shall fully cooperate 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 Trial Court, they may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial. The petitioners shall deposit their pass port (if any) 9 before the trial court. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court and a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/