This Petition Is Filed By The vs Cbi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3365 AP

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.4836 of 2021


ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner/A-22 seeking anticipatory

bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.03/RCO-

CIU-ACB/2020 on the file of Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U, A.P.

Vijayawada for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 13

(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 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 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution and the relevant portion of the

complaint against the petitioners is that the Government of India

enacted the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 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 Department 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 the period 2014-2019 procured

drugs and medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment,

laboratory kits, furniture etc., 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

A-22 along with A-19 to A-21, A-23 and A-24 colluded with AO-18

and entered into criminal conspiracy with one another with an

intention to cause wrongful loss to the Government exchequer and

wrongful gain to M/s Legend Enterprises, which belongs to the

petitioner and A-19. It is the case of prosecution that AO-18

committed criminal misconduct by allegedly allowing A-19 to A-24 to

supply HemoCue Lab Kits with exorbitant rates without following due

procedure. It is also alleged that petitioner who is the representative

of M/s Omni Medi used to come to CDS Section, IMS, AP on behalf of

M/s Omni Medi, M/s Legend Enterprises and M/s Avantor

Performance Materials India Ltd., and collect the Purchaser Orders

from AO-6 and after supply of products, he used to come to

Directorate to submit the tax invoice copies to AO-6. It is also stated

that the petitioner used to meet the Director, IMS whenever he came

to Directorate to take Purchase Orders for Lab Kits and to submit the

Tax Invoice Bills for payments on behalf of the above said firms.

4. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M.Subhani, Special Public

Prosecutor for ACB cases appearing on behalf of the respondent-

State.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations made in the

complaint and the petitioner is not working in M/s Omni Medi since

2019-2020 and while he was working in the firm, the petitioner was

only incharge of menial jobs. He submits that the petitioner never

collected Purchase Orders on behalf of M/s Legend Enterprises and

M/s Avantor Performance Materials India Ltd. He submits that the

petitioner used to collect Purchase Orders and submit tax invoices on

the directions of A-19 for M/s Omni Medi. He submits that the

transactions are purely commercial/ contractual in nature and

basing on some motivated and extraneous reasons, the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case after more than one year of

registration of F.I.R.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the

State of Telangana several malicious cases were initiated against the

petitioner on the same allegations and petitioner was subsequently

released on bail on all the F.I.Rs in the State of Telangana. He

submits that even it is not the case of prosecution in the State of

Telangana that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation

or influencing the witnesses, as such his case may be considered for

grant of pre-arrest bail.

7. Per contra, Sri S.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 Enterprises by submitting

fake authorization letters of HemoCue India to IMS, AP though it was

not the authorized distributor of HemoCue India. He submits that

the petitioner colluded with other accused and participated in

conspiracy for supplying HemoCue Lab Kits to ESI, AP at exorbitant

rates. He submits that three firms i.e. 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.6-3-855/10/A, Sampathji Apartments,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad. He submits that the petitioner along with

other accused has caused huge loss of Rs.3,55,43,134/- to

Government exchequer and wrongful gain to petitioner's firm i.e. M/s

Legend Enterprises and finally to A-19.

8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that during the

course of investigation it is revealed that the petitioner (A-22), 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

A-21 submitted fake authorization letters in the name of HemoCue

India to the Director, IMS, AP on 19.03.2014 and 19.03.2015 stating

that M/s Legend Enterprises is their authorized distributor for AP

and Telangana ESI Hospitals/Dispensaries for supply of their

products and authorized to quote, collect purchase orders, transact

business, receive payments and any other activity in order to procure

purchase orders from Director, IMS, AP illegally for supply of lab

kits/Reagents manufactured by M/s HemoCue India.

9. He submits that the investigation revealed that A-19 to A-24

colluded with 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 finally

to A-19 and other accused. AO-18 committed criminal misconduct by

allegedly allowing A-19 to A-24 to supply HemoCue Lab Kits with

exorbitant rates without following due procedure. He submits that

the petitioner and other accused as habitual offenders, who involved

in similar cases and even in the State of Telangana also similar cases

were registered against the petitioner. He submits that they have to

apprehend the other accused and the investigation is pending, if the

petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering

with the evidence and influence the witnesses directly or indirectly

and jeopardize the investigation process.

10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the following

judgments -

a) Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI1.

b) State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi2.

c) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and another3.

d) P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement4.

e) Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharastra and another5.

f) Kaladindi Sanyasi Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

(Crl.P.No.1932 of 2018 dated 08.03.2018).

g) Dr.Chinthala Krishnappa Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh (Crl.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 offence comes under the category of

economic offence, where crores of public money is involved and the

investigation is pending, as such the petitioner is not entitled for pre-

arrest bail at this stage.

(2012) 4 SCC 134

(2005) 8 SCC 21

(2004) 7 SCC 528

2019 SCC OnLine SC 1549

(2014) 16 SCC 623

11. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned

Special Public Prosecutor for respondents and perused the record.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases observed that 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 apprehension of the witness being tampered with and the

larger interest of the Public/State.

13. In the case on hand, the investigation as per the instructions of

the learned Public Prosecutor is at the threshold and several

witnesses have to be examined. The apprehension of the respondent

that the petitioner may influence the witnesses and interdict with

investigation process cannot be completely ruled out. Taking into

consideration the magnitude of the offence, specific overt acts made

against the petitioner and investigation being at the threshold, this

Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

14. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are

closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 2nd September, 2021

PVD/SJ

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Dismissed

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4836 of 2021

2nd September, 2021

PVD/SJ