Vikas Kumar Ojha vs State Of Jharkhand

JUDGMENTTAG-JUDGMENT

The instant bail application has been preferred for grant of regular bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2012, corresponding to Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.22 (A) of 2012, registered under Section 409, 420, 201, 109, 120B 468,469 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the construction of Haj House in Ranchi began on 17.07.2007 and continued till 20.09.2009 and on 20.09.2009, while the casting of the portico of the building was being done, a portion of the slab collapsed injuring nine women labourers, while 30 labourers were trapped in the debris and the petitioner was one of the members of the supervision team.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner at the time of accident in Haj House, the petitioner was not even posted in Ranchi and was posted as Executive Engineer in Dhanbad and the petitioner had no role to play in the construction or supervision of the building, procurement of materials or in any dealing with the persons entrusted with the execution of the construction work. He further submits that the petitioner was not even a member of special cell created by the Board for construction of the Haj House and he is falsely being implicated in this case.

Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand strongly opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that earlier the petitioner had moved for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected up-to Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India and it is the petitioner who has made preparation of the cost for the project.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, at present the petitioner shall be released on personal bond of Rs.5,000/-, thereafter when the Lockdown period is over, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2012, corresponding to Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.22 (A) of 2012, within a period of one month from the date of lifting of Lockdown. Further direction is that the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each and every date as fixed by the learned trial court, otherwise his bail bonds shall be cancelled.

As a result, this application is allowed subject to the aforesaid condition.