A.P. Srivastava vs The State of Jharkhand

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice Jaya Roy

Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 409/420/423/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 7/13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Mr. P.C.Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R but he has been implicated in this case falsely. The petitioner has joined I.V.R.C.L. at Luck No w on 01.08.2005 as Sr. Engineer. Thereafter, he was transferred from Luck No w to Ranchi for execution of work only on 10.12.2006. Thereafter, one letter was issued by D.K.Shrivastava, A.G.M. on 22.01.2007 by which the power has been delegated to the petitioner but No financial power was given to him and an office at Ashoknagar was opened on 27.12.2006 and the Company was entrusted to carry out the rural electrification work at Latehar, Palamau and Garhwa. The total package was for Rs. 500 Crore approximately. It is further submitted that due to the health problem the petitioner had sent a letter of his resignation on April, 2008 but the same was No t accepted. He again sent a second resignation letter on 01.07.2009 but the same was again No t accepted. Ultimately, his letter of resignation was accepted on 20.11.2009. He has further submitted that after resignation the office was raided on 23.12.2009 by the Income Tax Department and the petitioner cooperated fully with the Income Tax Department. It is further submitted that even on 17.01.2010 he was attacked by the miscreants at his residence and he received a bullet injury for which he was immediately admitted to Guru Nanak Hospital. Therefore, though he has discharged his duty as a Sr. Engineer of the Company neither he has received any illegal gratification No r there is anything to show his involvement in the present case.

Mr. Tripathy has further submitted that the I.O. Cum Dy.S.P., Vigilance has issued a Notice to the petitioner for giving the statement u/s 160 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner gave a reply to the said Notice. To support his contention the petitioner has annexed his reply given to the I.O. Cum Dy.S.P., Vigilance as Annexure-1 to his reply to the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I.

Counsel for the C.B.I., Mr.Mokhtar Khan has filed a detail counter affidavit in this case and submitted that earlier the Vigilance was the Incharge of the case but thereafter the case has been handed over to the C.B.I for investigation. He has further submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and he was engaged in five projects in the power Sector in the State of Jharkhand which are as follows:-

1.Latehar Package ''E'' of JSEB

2.Garhwa Package ''F'' of JSEB

3.Palamau Package ''G'' of JSEB

4.Lohardaga-Latehar Package ''A'' of JSEB

5.Latehar-Daltonganj Package ''B'' of JSEB.

All the above mentioned packages are related to transmission line work. It is also submitted that the petitioner has accepted all these facts while he was examined by the Income Tax authorities u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act. Mr. Khan has further submitted that during the tenure of the petitioner, while he was posted at Ranchi, the LOI/Contract for rural electrification work and transmission line work were received and huge amount of bribe was paid by the authorities and the private persons. During the course of survey u/s 133A different Books of Account were impounded from the office of the IVRCL & P Ltd., 185/C Road No .4, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi. The Books of Account (Hard Disk) reveal that the petitioner has paid Rs. 30 lakhs(Rupees thirty lakhs) to B.M.Verma and H.B.Lal, the then Chairman, JSEB on the behest of Shiva Reddy. It is also contended that during examination of the aforesaid projects in which Latehar, Garhwa, Palamau and Lohardaga were to be connected with the electricity, it has revealed that the aforesaid Company, namely, IVRCL & P Ltd. in collusion with the Chairman and other officials of the J.S.E.B. have misused their position and have earned huge money. Mr. Khan has also submitted that after investigation the I.O. has already submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. He has further submitted that there are sufficient material which clearly shows the involvement of the petitioner in this case as at the relevant time he was the Sr. Engineer of the aforesaid Company and posted at Ranchi and admittedly, he was in charge of the aforesaid five projects.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that sufficient material has come against the petitioner regarding his involvement in this case and furthermore, admittedly he was the Sr. Engineer of the Company psoted at Ranchi at the relevant period and he was engaged in the aforesaid five projects in the power Sector in the State of Jharkhand and furthermore, a huge amount i.e. Rs 500 Crore is involved in this case, I am No t inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.