IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR 1. S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.1238/2010 Dwarkesh Shukal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2. S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.1322/2010 Rajesh Arora & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 18th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Mahesh Gupta ] Mr.R.N. Khandelwal ] for petitioners. Mr.T.P. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. ***
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that pursuant to the FIR, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the P.C. Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short the I.P.C.). The petitioners were not arrested during the course of investigation, but at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, their bail application was rejected, accordingly, they were arrested.
It is stated that the matter pertains to allotment of job for installation of 450 TPA (Tons per annum) Bromine Plant at Khara Ghoda, Gujarat. M/s. Hindustan Salt Ltd. (a public sector undertaking) called for tender. M/s. Goyal Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. had given the lowest tender, thus matter was processed, however, final approval was given by the Board of Director i.e., at the instance of Chairman. Thus, the petitioners have wrongly been implicated in the matter. The work of establishing Bormine Plant was taken up with great difficulties as when initially tender was called, parties had not come forward to execute the work. Thus, it is with great persuasion the work was got done. After establishment of the Bromine Plant, the investigation agency had taken note of certain documents of M/s. Goyal Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. to show that the work was executed at much lesser price than that for which contract was awarded to it. The petitioners or any other official cannot know that work would be executed through other agency at a lower price rather no such document was even existing at the time of finalization of the tender. In any case, the petitioners have no role in award of tender and otherwise complaint was made at the instance of interested persons. The petitioners had even raised objection at the time of making payment, thus looking to all these facts and bonafide of the petitioners, they may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. has opposed the bail application and submits that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they being the members of the Committee, who finalized the tender, are responsible for their act. As per C.V.C. Guidelines, the work could not have been allotted to M/s. Goyal Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. because as per C.V.C. Guidelines, tender cannot be allotted to a consultant. In the present matter, project report was prepared by M/s. Goyal Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., which was nothing but a consultation report, yet in violation of the C.V.C. Guidelines, tender of the aforesaid Firm was accepted. The tender was awarded for a sum of Rs.2.78 lacs whereas it got the work executed from M/s. Boro Glass International Ltd. for a sum of Rs.1.48 lacs only and Rs.8 lacs were paid illegally towards excise duty etc. even though same was not payable. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail.
It is also submitted that cases of corruption are now required to be taken up seriously as not only number of such cases are increasing but volume of the amount involved therein is very large. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, it is prayed that bail applications of the petitioners may be rejected.
After considering the rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect the outcome of the trial, but looking to the facts of this case, I am not inclined to accept these bail application and accordingly same are rejected at this stage.
The petitioners would, however, be at liberty to file a fresh bail application on hearing of the case for framing of the charges.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Item No.S/20/21
Suni