Jagdish Sharma vs The State of Bihar

S.K. Singh, J.—The present application for bail has been filed by the sole Petitioner, who has been made accused in Special Case No. 22/96 corresponding to R.C. No. 20(A)/96-Patna for an offence u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution case, in short, is that pursuant to a direction of this Court dated 11.3.96 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1642/96 reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 561 and its analogous cases, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 5811 of 1996 reported in 1996 (1) PLJR (SC) 97, the C.B.I. took up investigation of 47 cases, including the case lodged by Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa vide F.I.R. No. 12 of 1996 dated 20.2.1996 relating to fraudulent withdrawal of huge sum of Government money from the Government Trsasury by the officials of the State Government and suppliers of Animal Husbandary Department. Apart from taking over investigation of those 47 cases, the C.B.I. also registered some new cases.

Though in the present case, initially the Petitioner has not been named in the first information report but after investigation, Mr. A.K. Jha, Inspector of Police, C.B.I. filed a petition before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Patna on 6.1.97 alleging therein that the case relates to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 35 crores and odd from Chaibasa Treasury during the period 1994-95 by the officers named in the first information report. It had further transpired during the course of investigation that the present Petitioner, who at the relevant time was the Chairman of the Public Accounts committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the ''PAC'') had also connived and had collected figures of fraudulent withdrawal from the Treasury and had also assisted the accused persons so that the investigation could not be done in a propar manner. It was also found out that the Petitioner also enjoyed the hospitability from the accused suppliers of the Department, who were named accused in the said case. It has further been alleged that the Petitioner in his capacity of the chairman of the PAC took over the enquiry of the alleged excess withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury Animal Husbandry Department suo motu without any reference by the Speaker, of the Assembly or the Govt. of Bihar and had seized the relevant records pertaining to the excess fraudulent withdrawal so that proper investigation could not be done and the accused persons could not be booked. During the investigation, it has also come to light that inspite of the fact that the Petitioner was in know of the fact regarding the excess and fraudulent withdrawal from the Chaibasa Treasury but he neither took action to expose the same nor did he submit any report rather by abusing his position of Chairman of the PAC, he protected the accused officials and suppliers of the Animal Husbandry Department. The said act of the Petitioner is said to have been done for a monetary gain of Rs. five lacs per month, which he was being paid by the suppliers-accused in the present case. It has also been alleged that the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, Government of Bihar to give orders to the officials of the Vigilance Department and Finance Department to stop enquiry against the officials of Animal Husbandry Department till the completion of the enquiry and submission of report by the P.A.C. on the ground that the P.A.C. was enquiring into the matter relating to the financial irregularities of South Chhotanagpur and Ranchi. The said act was only for the purpose of fore-stalling any enquiry by the Vigilance Department against Dr. B.N. Sharma and other accused persons.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that though the Petitioner was arrested by the C.B.I. Ranchi Branch on 13.9.96 and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 1.10.96 and by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi he was remanded to custody, C.B.I., Ranchi for one week, during which period he was interrogated by the C.B.I. regarding fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Treasury at various places in the State of Bihar. The Petitioner was produced before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Patna on 7.10.96. According to the learned Counsel on 7.10.96 when the Petitioner was produced before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna a petition was filed on his behalf not only to remand him in R.C. No. 64/A/96 Patna but in all the cases in which he was required by the C.B.I. The said petition, according to the learned Counsel, was opposed by the C.B.I. and on 7.10.96 the Petitioner was remanded in only one case, i.e., Special Case No. 33/96. On 15.10.96 a petition was filed by the C.B.I. seeking the remand of the Petitioner for three days in Special Case No. 65/96. The said request was granted and the Petitioner was remanded to the custody and thereafter to the judicial custody in Special case No. 65/96.

An argument has been made that at the time of remand in Special Case No. 33/96, the Petitioner could have been remanded in Special Case No. 65/96 also but, the C.B.I. had objected to his remand so that the Petitioner should be denied that benefit u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This fact does not appear to be tenable even from the record of the case, as in the earlier case the Petitioner was remanded on 7.10.96 and in Special Case No. 65/96 he has been remanded just one week thereafter, i.e., on 15.10.96. As such, no malice can be attributed to the Investigating Agency in this regard.

A division bench of this Court in the case of Saad and Co., Ranchi and Chotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply and Co. v. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and Ors. analogous cases vide Cr. Misc. No. 18776 of 1996, Cr. Misc. No. 18762 of 1996 and Cr. Misc. No. 21177 of 1996 as well as Cr. Misc. No. 22524 of 1996 reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 957 after considering several judgments of this Court as well as the apex court had come to the conclusion that the aforesaid order of subsequent remand in different cases cannot be held to be bad, unless the court is satisfied that the said has been obtained for perverse consideration. The Division Bench in the said case found that, as there was no abuse of judicial power in passing of the aforesaid order of subsequent remand, the said could not be quashed.

In view of the said decision and other decision, no benefit can be availed by the Petitioner, as he has been subsequently remanded in the other case.

Learned Counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, has argued that conspiracy angle of the case was being investigated by the C.B.I. and the same has reached at the crucial stage of investigation. So far as the Investigation is concerned, the same is likely to be concluded within a period of two-three weeks.

It has further been argued that the Petitioner, being an influential member of the Legislative Assembly and being an Ex-Chairman of the P.A.C., commands a clout and his release on bail- may result in tampering with the investigation of the case, as certain documents are required on which the Assembly has claimed privilege and as such, the deposition of some of the witnesses are required to be recorded, who may be influenced by the Petitioner, which may hamper the investigation of this case.

The case diary of the present case has also been produced before me in Chamber. I had perused the same. There are witnesses to the extent stating therein that withdrawal and an enquiry was ordered, at the behest of the Petitioner, the records could not be obtained, as it was stated that the said has already been seized by the Petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of P.A.C. though actually the records were kept in the houses of the suppliers accused for forestalling any enquiry in to the matter. Letters written by the Petitioner to the Chief Minister in this regard were also shown to me.

Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has relied upon the orders of this Court by which bail of two of the accused persons of the Animal Husbandry Scam has been refused by this Court. Similarly, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in which an accused of Anr. scam was enlarged on bail.

The decisions of those cases, to my mind, are not much relevant to the context of the present case, as each bail application is to be disposed of in the facts of the each case on its own merit.

To my mind the allegation against the Petitioner is quite serious, as a huge amount of money running in several crores have been fraudulently withdrawn for which several cases have been registered and taken over for investigation by the C.B.I. on the direction of this Court as well as apex court and conspiracy as well as Petitioner''s involvement not only in the present case but many other such cases has come to light during the course of investigation. It has also come to light during the course of investigation that the Petitioner, being the Chairman of the P.A.C., has connived with the officials and suppliers of the Animal Husbandry Deptt. in fraudulent withdrawal of money from several treasuries of the State of Bihar. Thus the offence alleged against the Petitioner is not only an offence against the State but is an offence against the Nation and its people, as it has transpired from the case diary as well as the submission of the Counsel for the C.B.I. According to the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. the case is at a delicate stage of investigation, which is likely to be concluded very soon.

In the facts of the case, for the reasons stated above, I am not Inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail for the present.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, the C.B.I. is directed to conclude the investigation at the earliest.