Vijay Shankar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.41 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.1036 of 2015 instituted under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P appearing for the State.

Though vide order dated 30.04.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to file supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the satisfactory completion of work certificate from the informant in respect of the road regarding shortcomings in construction of which this F.I.R. was lodged but no such certificate could be filed by the petitioner but instead of that the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit but the same does not contain the said certificate which the petitioner undertook to file on 30.04.2019 before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in capacity of the Project Manager of N.P.C.C. was entrusted with the work to monitor the construction of road from (i) Tongo to Chitarpur (ii) Tongo to Natapol (iii) Chhatarpur to Harra (iv) B.P.D.P. Road to Sokrahatu Part-B and on the basis of inappropriate inspection report, payment of Rs.577.41/- lakhs was made to the contractor on the recommendations of the petitioner and the inspection team constituted to examine the work conducted by the contractor found that incorrect report was submitted by the petitioner and it was also found that work was not done as per the agreement and even then the petitioner recommended for payment to the contractor on the basis of wrong and false report. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is then submitted that the duty of the petitioner was to certify the work done. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not empowered for making any payment rather the Zonal Manager, N.P.C.C. is empowered to make payment for the work done. It is next submitted that the Junior Engineer or the Assistant Engineer was responsible for making entry in the measurement book and the job of the petitioner was only to certify and verify the same. It is then submitted that the co-accused Sanjay Kumar Roy, Randhir Kumar, Shyam Kishore Singh and Ritesh Kumar Sinha, with similar allegations, have already been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court and another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 22.04.2019, 04.09.2018, 19.09.2016 and 31.01.2018 passed in A.B.A. Nos.1946 of 2019, 5038 of 2018, 4045 of 2015 and 6731 of 2017 respectively. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of being responsible for misappropriation of huge amount of Government money to the tune of Rs.577.41/- lakhs on the basis of inappropriate recommendation of the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the details of the case and the criminal conspiracy as also the name of the other persons involved in the criminal conspiracy. Hence, it is submitted the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P appearing for the State further submits that so far as the case of the co-accused Sanjay Kumar Roy is concerned, he was engaged by the contractor for quality check and in his report he did not declare that the work done by the contractor to be complete in all respect but still the petitioner recommended for the payment of the said amount. Hence, the allegation against the co-accused Sanjay Kumar Roy stands on different footing from that of the petitioner. It is also submitted that only because the embezzled amount can be recovered by a certificate proceeding under the law is not by itself a sufficient ground to grant bail to an accused person in a case particularly when huge sum of government money has been embezzled and when the custodial interrogation of the accused is required during the investigation of the case.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being responsible for misappropriation of Rs.577.41/- lakhs of Government money as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.