Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 31 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 2432 of 2022
-----
Ashok Kumar Singh ... .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau ... .... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s Pandey Neeraj Rai, Rohit Ranjan Sinha
& Akchansh Kishore, Advocates
For the ACB : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
-----
Oral Order
11 / Dated : 31.08.2022
Apprehending his arrest, petitioner- Ashok Kumar Singh has moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 02/2011 (Special Case No. 02(A)/2011) registered under Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption At, 1988
(hereinafter called as the P.C. Act).
Heard the parties.
As per the prosecution case, Jharkhand State Electricity Board issued Notice
Inviting Tender (NIT) for undertaking work under the Accelerated Power
Development and Reforms Programme (APDRP) under Package 'D' for
Jamshedpur Town stipulating therein that the work would be targeted one which
requires to be completed within time schedule and that the price quoted by the
bidder shall not be subjected to variation in prices shall be admissible on any
account to the bidder. Same clauses were reiterated when the work orders were
issued to M/s Ramji Power Company Limited (RPCL) and even in the
agreement entered into between the JSEB and M/s RPCL they were part of the
terms and conditions. M/s RPCL could not execute the work by the due date i.e.
26.09.2005. However, time was extended from 26.09.2005 to 31.07.2007
without putting any clause for escalation of price but with imposition of
liquidated damages. M/s RPCL agreed to that proposal and assured that the work
will be completed within the extended time and it will not be going for any
arbitration. When it was found that M/s RPCL contrary to its promise did not
even start the work by 31.07.2007, the then Chairman, JSEB directed the Chief
Engineer, APDRP to put up the agenda for termination of contract of M/s RPCL
in the meeting of the Board of JSEB. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, APDRP
put up the agenda to the then Member (Technical), JSEB who in connivance
with the other accused held back the concerned file till the transfer of said
Chairman, JSEB. Thereupon, Mr. P.K. Sinha, the then Electrical Executive
Engineer, APDRP, put note in the file for appointment of Arbitrator and for
waiver of penalty after having approval of the Chairman whereby the Arbitrator
was appointed and gave award. In pursuance of that, payments were made to
M/s RPCL and later on when it was detected that grave financial irregularities
had been committed in making payments to M/s RPCL by adopting mal-
practices by the officers of the Board, FIR was lodged with the Vigilance. The
sum and substance of allegation was that clause of the agreement stipulated no
escalation price to delays, for which the Chariman, JSEB had initiated proposal
for termination of the contract but it was deliberately suppressed. Chairman,
JSEB asked the concerned officers to place the agenda in the next meeting of the
Board for termination of contract but the officers of the Board having hatched
conspiracy never placed the agenda before the Board for termination of contract
rather P.K. Sinha, Electrical Executive Engineer, APDRP placed the file for
appointment of an Arbitrator, waiver of penalty and extension of time.
Thereupon, at the behest of P.K. Sinha and other officers of the Board including
the Director of Finance, an Arbitrator was appointed who gave award in favour
of M/s RPCL and accordingly, the Board had to pay Rs.10.87 Crore which
included the amount on account of price variation. The award being in express
violation of the term of the contract, authority of the Board should have
contested the award but they without examining the merit of the award placed
the file for approval of the award of sole Arbitrator and the then Chief Engineer,
APDRP without examining the consequences of the award recommended for its
approval by the Board. Thus by suppressing the vital facts incurred a financial
loss of the Board to the tune of Rs. 9,05,87,073/-.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the
Managing Director of the Company which was awarded the work contract. The
main accused P.K. Sinha against whom there is charge of suppression of vital
facts under a conspiracy, causing to monetary loss to the Board on account of
payment of escalation prices had moved the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cr. Appeal
No. 1333 of 2022 arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3440 of 2021 which has been
quashed and he has been discharged vide judgment dated 24.08.2022.
It is further submitted that the Company headed by this petitioner was
recipient of award by the Arbitrator which cannot per se be called the criminal
act on the part of the petitioner. The role of the petitioner in getting the
advantage has not be set out in the charge sheet except that he took part in
agenda meeting of the Company and was engaged in official communication
regarding it. As Company has not been made an accused and, therefore, in view
of the ratio laid down in (2012) 5 SCC 661 (Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather
Travels & Tours). The petitioner cannot be proceeded again. Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed in Cr. Appeal No. 1333 of 2022 that the proposal to
terminate the contract was consciously dropped by the JSEB. Lastly the co-
accused has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
The Spl. P.P. appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau opposed the prayer
for bail. It is submitted that the case of this petitioner is not on the same footing
as that of other accused person who have been granted bail. He is the Director of
the Company and the principal recipient of the extra payment under the award
beyond the term of the Contract.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed
above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his
arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the
petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below, subject to the conditions
laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation and will appear on notice
under Section 41A of Cr. P.C.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT
