Umakant Gupta vs C.B.I.

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Heard Sri Mahendra Bahadur Singh and Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

The applicant Dr. Umakant Gupta is a co-accused along with Dr. K.K. Singh in the present case. The allegation against Dr. Umakant Gupta is that he allegedly participated actively in a resolution and facilitated the release of an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- as the first installment in the capacity of District Programme Manager to a NGO, namely, M/s. Care Dot Com which money was never utilized for upgrading of the Hospital.

The Secretary of the NGO Amit Singh had filed Bail Application No. 23993 of 2014 which was rejected by this Court on 2.9.2014. The second bail application moved by Amit Singh in the same case which, in view of the circumstances explained therein, has been allowed by this Court today.

In the present case, the allegation against the applicant is that he did not correctly verify the existence of the hospital and rather verified only the existence of the NGO as recorded in the resolution dated 29.12.2006 which was not sufficient to release the grant-in-aid to be disbursed through M/s. Care Dot Com. It is alleged that the persons who were running the NGO disappeared without installing any equipment in the hospital where upgradation was to be carried out.

The charge sheet and the FIR, therefore, alleges conspiracy on the part of the applicant in getting the funds released for its utilization and consequential misappropriation.

A perusal of the proceedings dated 29.12.2006, copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the writ petition, indicates that the address of the NGO is the same as that which was given of the hospital where the funds were to be utilized. The person running the hospital Dr. Baiswar has been granted bail by this Court.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the bail order of one Dr. P.P. Verma an accused in the NRHM scam granted by the Apex Court, which is quoted hereinunder:--

"ITEM No. 2

SECTION II

COURT No. 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4863/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/05/2014 in CRMA No. 36417/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)

PREM PRAKASH VERMA Petitioner(s) VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondent(s)

(With Appln.(s) for Bail and Permission to file Additional Documents and Office Report)

Date : 24/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON''BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI HON''BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nagendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Adv.

For Respondent (s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mrs. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

The National Rural Health Mission Scheme (NRHM) was launched with a view to providing accessible, adequate, affordable, accountable and reliable health care to all persons particularly the vulnerable people residing in remote areas. On 15.12.2011 in Public Interest Litigation Petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court, the Allahabad High Court gave a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an inquiry in the execution and implementation of NRHM Scheme. Allahabad High Court further directed that if prima facie, commission of cognizable offence is found, then a case be registered. In pursuance of these directions, inquiry was conducted and on 23.03.2012, the CBI registered an FIR against the petitioner, the then Chairman of the 2 Purchase Committee and also the Chief Medical Officer and others under Sections 420/467/468/471/477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 14.02.2013, the CBI filed charge-sheet against 12 persons which included the petitioner under Sections 120B an 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It is inter alia the case of the prosecution that the Purchase Committee which was headed by the petitioner purchased Iron Folic Acid tablets at Rs. 26 paise per tablet, which was available in the open market at Rs. 6 paise per tablet. This resulted in the loss of Rs. 11,07,692/- to the Government.

The petitioner surrendered before the trial court on 23.10.2013 and ever since he is in judicial custody. The petitioner filed bail application before the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court by the impugned order rejected the petitioner''s bail application and hence, the petitioner has filed the present special leave petition.

We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at some length and learned senior counsel for the CBI. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that several persons who are similarly placed have been released on bail by the High Court. A chart showing the details in that regard is submitted in the Court today. After perusing the same, we find the statement to be correct. Inasmuch as the similarly situated persons have been released on bail, we think that the petitioner shall also be released on bail. It is also necessary to note that the charge sheet is already filed in the case and the petitioner is in jail for about 11 months.

In the circumstances, the petitioner Dr. Prem Prakash Verma is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

The petitioner shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

The petitioner shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only).

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) will be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the 3 trial court shall invest the said amount in any nationalized bank on usual terms.

In case of breach of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.

The special leave petition is disposed of.

(Gulshan Kumar Arora) Court Master

(Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master"

Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I., has vehemently urged that the proceeding dated 29.12.2006 leaves no room for doubt that the verification was of the alleged NGO and not of the hospital whereas Sri M.B. Singh and Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, have urged that the hospital was in existence and that had been correctly proposed as the place for upgradation to be carried out was never in doubt. In such circumstances, the approval of the proposal by the applicant and the other members being a joint decision did not suffer from any infirmity. If the funds allocated to the NGO were misappropriated by it, then the applicant cannot be said to have conspired in the commission of the alleged offence.

It has also been urged by Sri Singh that the District Magistrate being the Chairman of the District Blindness Control Society has also signed the said resolution whereafter the funds were released. He contends that if the NGO did not actually utilize the funds for installation then it was an embezzlement and misappropriation of the funds by the NGO and the applicant cannot be held responsible for it. He further submits that only one installment was released and the second installment was never released. It has further been submitted that the verification was carried out through the Deputy Chief Medical Officer and forwarded by the Joint Director and in the circumstances the applicant cannot be held responsible for subsequent disbursement as the applicant had gone to Barabanki from Lucknow on 29.1.2007.

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Sri Anurag Khanna submits that as a matter of fact no verification of the utilization was ever attempted or carried out and in the aforesaid background the applicant was a part of the conspiracy. Sri Singh to this has submitted a report that only after this alleged discrepancy was found that the second instalment was never released nor recommended to be released. Learned counsel contends that the other doctors who were involved in the NRHM scam have been granted bail by this Court as well as by the Apex Court and the applicant being a retired person is entitled to the same benefit. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is in jail and there is no likelihood of his tampering with any evidence or interfering with the investigation or the trial.

Considering the aforesaid submissions made, in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. P.P. Verma and keeping in view the age of the applicant, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Dr. Umakant Gupta, involved in Special Case No. 18 of 2013 arising out of FIR No. RC DST/2012/A/2007, under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offences under Section 420 IPC, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI-STF New Delhi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:--

"1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court."

In addition to the above, the applicant shall deposit Rs. 2 lacs, which is the amount of proportionate loss caused to the State Exchequer because of the acts of the applicant, by way of a draft in the name of the trial court within four weeks from the date of his release. The amount shall be invested in fixed deposit scheme in a nationalized bank and shall be renewed from time to time till the termination of the trial. The deposit so made, shall be subject to the final decision of the trial court.

Learned counsel for the applicant points out that the words "substantive offences under Section 420 IPC, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act" were inadvertently left out being mentioned in the bail application, even though the same has been pointed out in the supplementary affidavit.

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out necessary corrections in the bail application itself.

In case of default of compliance with any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall stand cancelled automatically.

This bail application stands allowed on the aforesaid terms.