Raj Kishan Shah vs State Of Assam

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for

the State respondent.

By this second petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely Raj Kishan Shah has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending

arrest in connection with C.M.’s Special Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 07/2017 under Sections 120B/468/409/471/406/420 of the IPC r/w Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Be it mentioned here that the earlier pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order, dated 26.02.2021, passed in AB

No. 3773/2020.

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that two other co-accused persons have already been released by this Court on pre-arrest

bail. Mr. Borthakur further submits that the petitioner has given his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating officer and thus, has

been cooperating in investigation.

Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the case diary reveals that work order was issued in favour of the present

petitioner and the petitioner had drawn an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs without properly executing the work as per schedule.

The FIR reveals the allegation that on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sri Manoj Deka, the informant, Inspector of C.M.’s Special Vigilance

Cell had conducted an enquiry in the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Rural (Road) Division, Dibrugarh and in the Office of the Chief

Engineer, PWD (Road), Assam as well as Treasury Office, Dibrugarh and found that some fake proposals and illegal payments were made by the

P.W.D. Rural (Roads) Division, Dibrugarh to some contractors. It is alleged that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was fraudulently paid to the present

petitioner against fake proposal by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural (Road) Division, Dibrugarh.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that has emerged from the case diary and the nature of the alleged offence as well as two other

co-accused persons have already been released by this Court on pre-arrest bail, maintaining parity in order, this Court is of the opinion that custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the interest of the ongoing investigation into the case.

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above

noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting

authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days and cooperate in investigation;

(ii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission.

Return the case diary.

This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.