Allahabad High Court
Dr. Abdul Halim vs C.B.I. / S.T.F. New Delhi on 10 October, 2013
Bench: Rajesh Dayal Khare
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29745 of 2013
Applicant :- Dr. Abdul Halim
Opposite Party :- C.B.I. / S.T.F. New Delhi
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Satish Trivedi,Sheshadri Trivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Khanna
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Anurag Khanna learned counsel for the CBI and rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in Court which are being taken on record.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey on behalf of the applicant, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the CBI, and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
It is contended that the offence in question relates to misutilization of NRHM funds which were to be utilized for providing affordable medical facilities to the persons living in remote areas. At the relevant time, the applicant was posted as CMO, Varanasi . The allegation against the applicant is that he departed from the procedure prescribed and the medicines which were available on rate contract, were purchased through tender bid whereby the medicines were purchased at an exorbitant price and thereby caused loss to the State Exchequer. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to show that the firm to which the order for purchase of medicines were given, which was later on were found to be exorbitant, paid any illegal gratification to the applicant. and on the other hand, the indent in question was issued following decision of a Committee, which after inviting tenders approved for issue of indent to the firm offering lowest bid.
Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant was also enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court in case crime Nos. 01 of 2013 under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 IPC and Section 13(2)read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 police station CBI/STF, New Delhi and case crime NO. 07 of 2013 under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 IPC and Section 13(2)read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RC DST/2012/A/0002CBI/STF/DLI police station CBI/STF, New Delhi vide orders dated 04.10.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail application Nos. 13369 of 2013 and 18096 of 2013. It is further contended that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and therefore, he is entitled for bail. It is further contended that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the CBI while opposing the application for bail argued that the applicant was the nodal officer of district Varanasi having full command over the funds as also the procedure in which the fund was to be released. The applicant not only was negligent in his duties but oblique motive of obtaining undue amount of money for him appears from the circumstances of the case and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Dr.Abdul Halim , involved in Special Case No. 13 of 2013 (FIR No. RC DST/2012/A/002CBI/STF/DLI under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act- 1988, Police Station- C.B.I./S.T.F., New Delhi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In addition to the above conditions, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit Rs. 1,29,920/-, which is the amount of loss caused to the State Exchequer due to alleged negligence 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 nationalised 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.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically be cancelled.
Order Date :- 10.10.2013
faraz
