A Krishna Reddy vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2011 Latest Caselaw 3663 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                 Bail Application No.914/2011

%                                               Reserved on: 27th July, 2011

                                                Decided on: 2nd August , 2011

A Krishna Reddy                                           ..... Petitioner
                                  Through:   Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. with
                                             Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Adv.
                         versus

Central Bureau of Investigation                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:             Mr. Dayan Krishnan with
                                              Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advs.
Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA


1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may             Not Necessary
   be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                    Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported               Yes
   in the Digest?

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By this application, the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case RC-

DAI-2010-A-0044 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections

420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the PC Act').

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that none of the allegations

made against the Petitioner disclose the essential ingredients of the offences

punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 476 of IPC. The allegations are

vague and bald. There is no material annexed to the charge sheet to establish

any of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. No allegation has been

made against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of

the PC Act. The Petitioner has joined the investigation and appeared before

the Investigating Officer on 7th February, 2011, 11th February, 2011 and 12th

February, 2011 and was interrogated till late hours of night. A search was

also conducted on 11th February, 2011 and 31st February, 2011 and possession

of all the documents from the office was taken. Proclamation made under

Section 82 Cr.P.C. is based on the allegation of non-appearance of the

Petitioner before the Investigating Officer on14th March, 2011 and 20 th April,

2011 when he was not even an accused. The name of the Petitioner for the

first time was shown as an accused on the date of filing of the charge sheet on

20th May, 2011 and the Petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender on 23 rd

May, 2011. Admittedly, there is no written contract between M/s Gem

International and M/s Swiss Timing Limited (STL). Further there was no

bar imposed on STL prohibiting it to enter into sub-contract with another

company/firm.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent contends that conduct of the

Petitioner has been such that he has been avoiding investigation. Though the

Petitioner claimed that he could not appear before the investigating agency on

account of his wife's illness, however, when on 31st March, 2011, the CBI

searched the residential as well as office premises of the Petitioner, he was not

available and was purportedly in Madhya Pradesh on work. The contention

that the Petitioner was never informed that he is an accused and now for the

first time he has been informed that he is an accused and no non-bailable

warrant could have been taken without intimating the Petitioner that he is an

accused is wholly incorrect. The Petitioner had filed a petition for

anticipatory bail before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was

dismissed. The stand of the CBI in respect of the Petitioner was clearly spelt

out in the Court and was recorded in the said order. The Petitioner is already

influencing the witnesses as one of the PWs was found assisting the learned

counsel for the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court. The contention that

the Petitioner is a sub-contractor of a sub-contractor and was nowhere in

picture when the alleged conspiracy was hedged between OC, STL, Anil

Kumar Madan and P.D. Arya, is wholly incorrect. In a case of conspiracy,

parties may even enter at a later stage, nonetheless they are liable for the

conspiracy. The entire boggy that the Petitioner's concern M/s AKR

Construction Ltd. did the work of laying down underground cabling is

incorrect in view of the statement of one Raj Kumar Rawat, who stated that he

had done the work of laying cables in Delhi. According to the Petitioner,

certain cash payments were made to Anjaiah and Balaiah for allegedly

arranging the labour. However, the Petitioner has not been able to produce

these two persons. No muster rolls were prepared in this regard. The

Petitioner only raised fictitious bills in the name of AKR Constructions. In

fact, the Petitioner's concern was a front face to divert the funds and it had

done no work. It is also contended by learned Special Prosecutor that during

investigation it has been revealed that M/s Gem International, whose partners

are Anil Kumar Madan and P.D. Arya, was acting as some sort of

agents/associates of M/s STL in the matter of dealing with the Organizing

Committee and huge amounts were transferred by M/s STL to M/s Gem

International on the pretext of its carrying out some sub-contractual work

relating to provision of TSR system for CWG 2010. M/s Gen International

received at least `23 crores from STL on the basis of generic, vague, lump

sum and incorrect invoices, which do not contain rates, quantities or details of

works carried out by them. It has further been revealed that the invoices are

false and are not based on genuine commercial transactions. The money was

further siphoned off to Petitioner's company from M/s Gem International on

the basis of fake invoices.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parti es. A perusal of the

statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that though the Petitioner

alleges that he entered into a contract for laying down underground cables

with M/s Gem International, however, he could neither produce the persons,

who did the work nor the muster rolls but only invoices and bills raised were

shown. This claim of the Petitioner appears to be false in view of the

statement of PW17, Raj Kumar Rawat, who has stated that he did the cabling

work in Delhi for TSR. The Petitioner may not be part of the conspiracy

initially, however, if he joins the chain subsequently, he would still be a part

of the conspiracy. As per the statement of PW 28 and PW31, it is clear that

no work was done by AKR for laying the cables. From the investigation

conducted so far the Petitioner's company appears to be a front face for

siphoning the money. However, the Petitioner has not been able to produce

the persons from whom he had arranged the labour nor any other documents

except certain invoices raised in the name of Anjaiah and Balaiah. The

interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary to explain the money trail as to

where the money had gone after being collected in the name of laying

underground cables.

5. In view of these facts, I do not find any merit in the application. The

application is accordingly dismissed.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 02, 2011 vkm