Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar vs State on 21 February, 2019
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.02.2019
+ CRL. REV. P. 1085/2018 & Crl. M.A. 48874/2018,
48876/2018, 49618/2018 & 3966/2019
SUSHIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad and Ms. Filza Moonis, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with Inspr. Braj
Mohan
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 14.11.2018 whereby the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioner was rejected.
2. Petitioner further seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.4/2015 under
Sections 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section
420/409/120B IPC, Police Station Anticorruption Branch.
3. The allegations in the FIR are that need for emergent repair of a
Sewage Pump was wrongfully shown and a fictitious bill created for repair
done where, in fact, there was no requirement of any repair nor was any
repair carried out. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Accounts Officer, is
alleged to have cleared the bill and disbursed the payment against the said
bill.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner had no role to play in
either the repair work nor sanctioning of the repair work as the same was
part of the Engineering Department. He submits that the documents were
submitted to the petitioner through the Accounts Officer, which showed
that there was an emergent requirement for carrying out repairs and
emergent repairs had been carried out and the documents had been signed,
counter signed sanctioned up to the level of the Chief Engineer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time
when the documents were first submitted, the petitioner had refused to
sanction the bill as there was no budget allocation for the same and
thereafter the documents were sent back to the Engineering Department,
which sent it back to the Treasury for sanction. Subsequently, when the
budget allocation was made by the Treasury for the said repair, the
documents were, once again submitted to the petitioner through the
Accounts Officer and the petitioner, after satisfying himself that all the
required CODAL formalities had been carried out, sanctioned the amount.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on
record to show that the petitioner was either aware of any foul play or had
any role to pay in-the repair work, which was alleged to have been carried
out.
7. By order dated 13.12.2018, interim protection was granted to the
petitioner subject to joining investigation.
8. Learned Addl. PP, under instructions, submits that the petitioner has
joined investigation and the investigation into the role of the petitioner is
concluded and there is no further requirement of petitioner to join
investigation.
9. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that
the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 rejecting
the anticipatory bail of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is set aside.
11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/Investigating
Officer/SHO concerned shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing
a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO
concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice the trial or
the prosecution witnesses.
12. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
13. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 21, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
