Jharkhand High Court
Pravin Parkeria vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I on 19 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2574 of 2022
------
Pravin Parkeria ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I. ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
: Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to ASGI
------
Order No.03 Dated- 19.04.2022
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C.
Case No.09(A) of 2017-D registered under sections 120B/420 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section
13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act.
The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the
petitioner being the director of M/s. Minop Innovative
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in criminal conspiracy with a Chinese
company in the name of style of M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining
Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China as well as the co-
accused- public servants being the top officers of Bharat Coking
Coal Limited which is a public sector undertaking has committed
cheating and also committed the offence punishable under Section
13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. It is further alleged that the petitioner represented his
company M/s. Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata
and attended the pre bid meeting in an unauthorized manner even
though he said company was not representing any manufacturer at
the relevant time and by suppressing the facts and in violation of
the terms of the supply order dispatched Road Header machines
though his principal, the said M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining
Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China without obtaining
BCCL approval for the machine drawings indicating position of
accessories. It is further alleged that the said company of the
petitioner through the principal being M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining
Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China has furnished false
inspection report and height of supplied machine was higher than
the ordered specification and work inspection report. The firm of
the petitioner further failed to ensure guaranteed availability of
machines and did not take any step for rectification of operational
problem of machines and also did not taken any step for extension
of DGMS permission for field trial/approval of filed trial. It is also
alleged that though the BCCL requested the petitioner and his
company to attend the problems encountered by the Road Header
machines but the petitioner did not respond to the said request of
BCCL and because of the same, they could not be pressed into
operation. It is then alleged that the Road Header machines
supplied by the petitioner was useless and that the same failed to
perform any work of BCCL and the machines were lying idle and
were of no use to the BCCL and by such cheating the petitioner in
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused of officers of the public
sector undertaking BCCL, has caused a huge amount of loss of
money of several crores of rupees to the public exchequer.
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and he has
falsely been implicated in this case and the petitioner was entitled
to attend the pre bid meeting of one of the Global Tenders floated
by the BCCL for supply of Road Headers. It is then submitted that
the petitioner and others proposed certain modification and
clarification but the BCCL refused to any major change in the
technical term, commercial term or in the NIT clauses. It is further
submitted that M/s. Minop Innovative Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as
an agent by its principal M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery
Company Limited, Beijing, China for the purpose of further sale of
bid. It is next submitted that the supply order was directly issued
to M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited,
Beijing, China and the role of the petitioner company was to give
after sales service for which the agency commission at the rate of
8% of FOB value machine for imported spares was agreed to be
paid to the company of the petitioner by M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining
Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China. It is then submitted
that the sale of the entire contract has not been complete due to
alleged defects in the supplied items. It is also submitted that the
BCCL has proceeded against the petitioner on mistaken notion and
has banned the business dealings of the petitioner with the BCCL
for three years and the banning of the business dealing for three
years has been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P. (C) No.1079 of 2017. It is next submitted that the petitioner
has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the BCCL
has filed Original Suit No.77 of 2018 before the Commercial Court
at Dhanbad against the company of the petitioner and M/s.
Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China
for the recovery of more than ₹ 18 crores besides interest thereon
and other reliefs; which is sub-judice and in view of the same, the
criminal case against the petitioner is preposterous and abuse of
the process of law. It is next submitted that charge sheet has been
submitted against the petitioner. Relying upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddharth vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676,
paragraph no.8 and 10 of which reads as under :-
8. In Deendayal Kishanchand v. State of
Gujarat [Deendayal Kishanchand v. State of
Gujarat, 1982 SCC OnLine Guj 172 : 1983 Cri LJ
1583] , the High Court observed as under : (SCC
OnLine Guj paras 2 & 8)
" Xxxxxxxxxx
8. I must say at this stage that the refusal by
criminal courts either through the learned
Magistrate or through their office staff to accept the
charge-sheet without production of the accused
persons is not justified by any provision of law.
Therefore, it should be impressed upon all the courts
that they should accept the charge-sheet whenever it
is produced by the police with any endorsement to be
made on the charge-sheet by the staff or the
Magistrate pertaining to any omission or
requirement in the charge-sheet. But when the police
submits the charge-sheet, it is the duty of the court to
accept it especially in view of the provisions of
Section 468 of the Code which creates a limitation of
taking cognizance of offence.
10. We may note that personal liberty is an
important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during investigation
arises when custodial investigation becomes
necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a
possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused
may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made
because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest
must be made. A distinction must be made between
the existence of the power to arrest and the
justification for exercise of it [Joginder
Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 1172] . If arrest is made routine, it can
cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-
esteem of a person. If the investigating officer has no
reason to believe that the accused will abscond or
disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation we fail to
appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused."
It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner that there is no compulsion on the part of the CBI to
arrest the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner
cooperated with the CBI during the investigation of the case and
appeared as and when called for and supplied the relevant
document during the investigation for and on behalf of the
principal company related to the transaction in question and also
related to the queries made. It is then submitted that the
Investigating Agency did feel the requirement for custodial
interrogation of the petitioner and submitted charge sheet. Learned
Senior Advocate next relied upon the order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through
Director reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941, paragraph no.12
and 13 of which reads as under:-
"12. If we may say, the observation hereinabove
would supplement our observations made
in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and
must be read together with that judgment.
13. The given factual scenario completely fits the
aforesaid as the appellant was never taken into
custody during investigation. Suffice to say that it
would be a fit case for the trial Court to grant bail to
the appellant on the next date on terms and
conditions to its satisfaction. As a measure of
precaution, largely arising from the manner of
submission of public prosecutor before the trial
Court, it is made clear that the interim protection
granted by this Court would continue till the
appropriate order is passed by the trial Court."
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege
of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that
there is specific allegation against the petitioner of in criminal
conspiracy with top officers of the BCCL including its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director by suppressing the facts that the petitioner
had dishonestly requested for modification of the NIT clause in the
pre bid meeting and was successful in getting the NIT clause
modified for the purpose of future consortium with the principal
firm M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited,
Beijing, China for obtaining supply order for depriving pecuniary
advantage to their firm by interfering and bribing the top officers
of the BCCL including its Chairman cum Managing Director who
is also the co-accused, and the petitioner by way of
misrepresentation of the facts in an unauthorized manner
represented before the BCCL that M/s. Minop Innovative Pvt. Ltd.
and M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited,
Beijing, China are not operating under any consortium
arrangement by concealing execution of MoU between the said
two firms just prior to the date of submission of bid forming
consortium to participate in the tender in question and has caused
huge amount of loss to the public exchequer of several crores of
rupees and BCCL has already filed a case for realization of
Rs.18,66,15,150/- and interest thereon as well as other reliefs. It is
then submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that keeping in
view the expertise of the petitioner in bribing not less than 14 top
officers of BCCL including its Chairman cum Managing Director to
get his illegal acts of cheating being done by bribing them
therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner influencing the
witnesses during the trial. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the CBI that as has been observed by the honourable
Supreme Court of India in the case of Satendar Kumar Antil V.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another in Miscellaneous
Application Number 1849/2021 arising out of SLP (CRL)
no.5191/2021 dated 16.12.2021 in Siddharth V.State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra) it was basically held that if during the course of
investigation, there has been no cause to arrest the accused merely
because at charge-sheet is filed would not be an ipso facto cause to
arrest the petitioner but this case stance in a different footing as
there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence
and also of influencing the witnesses. It is lastly submitted that,
there is every chance of the petitioner absconding also in case he is
given the privilege of anticipatory bail, in order to avoid the
payment of the loss amount of the public exchequer of several
crores of rupees. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought
not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the
petitioner of defrauding the public sector undertaking of several
crores of rupees in lieu with M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery
Company Limited, Beijing, China by suppressing the consortium
with it and also the threat of his tampering with evidence and
influencing the witnesses of this case as well as the chance of his
absconding, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a
fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of
anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Sonu/Gunjan-
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
