Sudhir Khalkho vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 28 April, 2011

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                A.B.A. No. 842 of 2011
                                        ...
           Sudhir Khalkho                              ...     ... Petitioner
                                ­V e r s u s­
           The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ...             ... Opposite Party
                                        ...
           CORAM: ­ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.
                                        ...
           For the Petitioner           : ­ Mr. B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate.
           For the State                : ­ Md. Mokhtar Khan, A.S.G.I.
                                        ...                            
03/28.04.2011

Anticipatory bail application filed by Sudhir Khalkho, in connection 
with   RC­18   (A)/2009   (R)   pending   in   the   court   of     Additional   Judicial 
Commissioner­cum­Special   Judge,   C.B.I.,   Ranchi,   is   moved   by   Sri   B.P. 
Pandey,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   petitioner   and   opposed   by   Md. 
Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

It   is   alleged   that   in   Contract   Agreement   No.   09F2/05­06, 
Contractor, Gajo Prasad Mehta had submitted 06 nos. of fake invoices of 
Bitumen purported to be issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bokaro and 
had   taken   payment   against   the   said   invoices   with   the   connivance   of 
petitioner. 

It is submitted that petitioner is Assistant Engineer and he has been 
falsely implicated in this case, though he has got no role in verification of 
Bitumen.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the   entire   responsibility   is   on   the 
Executive Engineer to give certificate regarding the arrival of Bitumen. It is 
further submitted that the Executive Engineer has been exonerated by the 
C.B.I. and only petitioner and Junior Engineers have been charge sheeted. 
Accordingly, petitioner prays that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned   counsel   for   the   C.B.I.   submits   that   as   per   work   order 
(Annexure­D), the certificate of arrival of Bitumen is required to be given 
either   by   the   Assistant   Engineer   or   by   the   Executive   Engineer.   It   is 
submitted that in the instant case petitioner, who is Assistant Engineer, had 
given verification certificate and on the basis of that wrong payment made 
to the Contractor. 

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, specially in view 
of the allegations made against the petitioner in the counter affidavit and 
documents attached with it, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on 
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

    (Prashant Kumar, J.)
sunil/