[3240] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE -PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4489 OF 2021 Between: BO Dr. Bolla Ravi Kumar, S/o Late BK. Subba Rao, aged 57 years the then director OQ/o insurance Medical services AP, Presently working as in-charge Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Viiayawada R/o Flat No.S4 SR residency Near ESIC Office, Urmilanagar, Gunadala, Vijaywada, Krishna District Petitioner/Accused Officer No.18 AND The State of A.P., rep its Special Public Prosecutor Anti-Corruption Bureau, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District Res pondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances Stated in the memo of grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner (AO-18) on bail in connection with Crime No.03/ROC-CIU-ACB/2020 dated 10.06.2020 of ACB, CIU, AP Vijayawada dated 10.06.2020. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memo of grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PV Krishnaiah, Advocate for the Petitioner, and Sri S.M. Subhani, Standing Counsel for ACB cum Spl. PP for Respondent, the Court made the fallowing ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4489 of 2021 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."}) seeking regular bail to the petitioner/AO-18 in connection with Crime No.03/RCO-CIU- ACB/2020 on the file of Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.1.U, AP. Vijayawada for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)}{a) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {for short "IPC").
x
2. The case of the prosecution and the relevant portion of the complaint against the petitioner is that the Government of India enacted the Employees State Insurance Act 1048. for extending Primary, Secondary and Super Specially Health Care Services to the employees, who are earning less than Rs.21,000/- who are covered under ESI scheme are entitled for medical facilities for self and dependents. The employees of State Insurance Scheme are being monitored by the Department of Medical Services and it comes under the control of Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories. The Director, IMS (DIMS} is the head of the Departrnent to implement ESI scheme. Two Joint Directors (Vijayawada and Kadapa) are working under the Director, IMS to look after the supervision of ESI Dispensaries and Panel Clinics. It has come to the notice of the Government that the Directors and Staff of Insurance Medical Services (IMS), AP, Vijayawada during theperiod 2014-2019 procured drugs and medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits, Shanes cere x furniture ete., and also purchased bio-metric machines at higher rates by violating the established procedure.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner who is AO-18 in collusion with A-19 to A-94 entered into criminal conspiracy with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the Government "exchequer and wrongful gain to M /s Legend Enterprises, which belongs to A-2] and A-19. It ig the case of prosecution that AQ-18 committed criminal misconduct by allegedly allowing A-19 te A-24 to supply HemoCue Lab Kits with exorbitant rates without following due procedure. It is also alleged that A-23 colluded with the petitioner, who is proprietor of Omni Health Care and others and participated in the conspiracy for Supply of HemoCue Lab Kits to ESI, A.P., at exorbitant rates through circular trading among their four firms. It is further alleged that A-21 Tepresented to DIMS that his firm is authorized distributor for the products manufactured by M/s HemoCue and the same was denied by the company. It is stated that enquiry revealed that A-19 used to collect purchase orders from DIMS and delivered the kits ete. manufactured by M /S HemoCue from petitioner's firm to DIMS through M/s Omni Medi, M/s Omni Enterprises showing that the material is being supplied by A-21's firm. It is stated that addresses of all these firms is one and the same,
4. Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M.Subhani, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, eooremrreet oes
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not connected with any of the offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that even though the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the Vigilance report as well as in ACB report, the investigating agency admittedly took a decision that there is no need to arrest the petitioner and not included the name of the petitioner along with 17 accused. He submits that while implicating the petitioner, the investigating agency failed to take into consideration the documents, which clearly shows that petitioner has no involvement in any of these transactions.
&. Learned counsel submits that even as per the allegations in the remand report, it is financial loss to the Government exchequer and financial gain to A-19 and A-21 and the petitioner has nothing to-do with any of these allegations and it is not the case of ACB that the petitioner was benefitted by any of these transactions. He further submits that the petitioner is not working in the said station and now the entire evidence ig with the ACB, as such there is no apprehension on the part of ACB that the petitioner may tamper with evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. He submits that petitioner is languishing in jail from 04.08.2021 and his case may be considered for grant of bail.
7. Per contra, Sri 3 M.Subhani, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submits that M/s Omni Health Care purchased the products from HemoCue India at lower prices and they did not directly supply the same to IMS, AP (ESI) and the same products (with same batch numbers) were supplied to IMS, AP (ESI) at exorbitant rates by M/s Legend Prey HemoCue India. He submits that the petitioner colluded with other accused. and participated in conspiracy for supply HemoCue Lab Kits to ESI, AP at exorbitant rates. He Submits that three firms ie, M/s Omni Medi, Hyd, M/s Omni Enterprises, Hyd and M/s Omni Health Care Hyd are in the same address i.e. Door No.6-3-855 / 1O/A, Sampathji Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
caused huge loss of Rs.3,55,43 ,134/- to Government exchequer and wrongful gain to M/s Legend Enterprises i.e. A-19° 8 firm, 8, Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that during the course of investigation it is revealed that one Cherukuri Nagaraju, who is the employee of M /s Omni Medi has personally collected the purchase orders from IMS Directorate on behalf of M/s Legend Enterprises and M /s Omni Medi in spite of having knowledge that he is no way associated with M /s Legend Enterprises. He submits that at the behest of husband of A- 20, he used to execute all the | illegal activities for pecuniary gain for himself and for company. He submits that the investigation revealed that A-19 to A-24 colluded with the petitioner/AO-18 and entered into criminal conspiracy with one another with an intention to cause wrongful loss to Government exchequer and Wrongful gain to M /s Legend Enterprises and final] ly to A-19 and other accused. The petitioner / AOQ-18 committed criminal misconduct by allegedly allowing A-19 to A-24 to supply HemoCue Lab Kits with exorbitant rates without following due Procedure. Petitioner being the public servant without calling for the tenders and conducting the process in a fair a o rail see erties Sitotetertie SESE Ta manner has colluded with the accused and caused pecuniary loss to the Government. He submits that they have to apprehend the other accused and the investigation is pending, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there ig likelihood of tampering the evidence and influence the witnesses directly or indirectly and jeopardize the investigation process.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the following judgments --
a} Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI.
b) State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi'. c} Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and another?.
d) P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement*.
e}) Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharastra and another®.
f} Kaladindi Sanyasi Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Cri.P.No.1932 of 2018 dated 08.03.2018).
| Dr.Chinthala Krishnappa Ramesh Kumar Vs. 5tate of Andhra Pradesh (Cri.P.No.3891 of 2021 dated 15.09.2020}.
h) R.Ravi Tejasri and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.P.No.4379 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020).
He submits that the present offence comes under the category of economic offence, where crores of public money 1s involved, as such the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondents and perused the record.
1 ¢2012) 4 SCC 134 ? (2005) 8 SCC 21 3 (2004) 7 SCC 528 49919 SCC OnLine SC 1549 5 (2014) 16 SCC 623 qrauenene® wana atta :
Q 8 8 & ' :
s :
g ll. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors has observed thus:
Ll, The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the Stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are,
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge,
12. It is settled law that the Court before granting bail shall be prima facie satisfied that the accused if erlarged on bail will not be in a position to tamper with the evidence. When the prosecution makes the allegation of tampering with the evidence, it is the duty of the Court to Satisfy itself whether there is any basis for that and in a mechanical way cannot be accepted.
13. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about the fact that entire documents are with the prosecution and the petitioner was in remand from the last 14 days. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial, reasonable * MANU/SC/0214/2004 = 2004 Cri Lu 1796 "ow ene ene "sf apprehension of the witness being tampered with and the larger interest of the Public/ State.
14. At present, petitioner is not working in the office of Insurance Medical Services, as such there cannot be apprehension for the prosecution that the petitioner may tamper with evidence, hamper the investigation and influence the witnesses.
15. No doubt the offence alleged against the petitioner is a Socio- economic offence, which not only affects the economy, but also peoples' faith in the system, but that cannot be a ground to keep the accused in jail. The respondent-ACB failed to place before this Court any material to show that there is likelihood of tampering with the evidence and the process of investigation will be hampered if the petitioner is released on bail. Hence, the Court is prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for granting bail.
16. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner / AO-18 shall be released on bail in respect of Crime No.03/RCO-. CIU-ACB/2020 on the file of Anti-Corruption Bureau, C..U, AP. Vijayawada on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The petitioner/AO-18 shall cooperate with investigation agency.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. -
"'Sd/-M. SRINIVAS ASSISATNT REGISTRA Ay us SECTION OFFICER TRUE COPY! Pre & Ba Ba EN x & s = = x = seoeset ste ttttdte tid tT Tdi SEE GGS To, The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, Krishna District The Superintendent, Spl. Sub-Jail, Machilipatnam, Krishna District The Anti-Corruption Bureau, CA.U, AP. Viiayawada, Krishna District One CC to Sri. P V Krishnaiah Advocate {OPUC] One CC to Sri S.M. Subhani, Standing Counsel for ACB cum Spl. PP, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati (OUT) One spare copy OB WOR o Skm "HIGH COURT LKJ DATED: 16/08/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.4489 of 2021 CRL.P IS ALLOWED