- (1.) This bail application was heard on 24.7.2015 and the background and the brief facts together with the contentions of the learned Counsel were noted in the order passed on that date, which is extracted here under:- "Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.I. Jafri for the C.B.I. The contention which has been raised in this case is to the effect that the applicant was engaged as an Editor of Rural News in M/s Jain T.V. whereafter a sister concern M/s Dr. Jain Video on Wheels Company came into existence where the applicant was shifted in the year 2008 as Vice President at a salary of Rs.70,000/-. The contention of Sri Dileep Kumar is that the applicant was there in the capacity of an employee and representing the company through a power of attorney for performing certain ministerial acts. It is thereafter that this incident has occurred and the company which has negotiated the tenders involved in the present case is headed by Mr. Ankur Jain as Managing Director and Smt. Shalini Dhanda as Executive Director besides other Directors on board. The applicant is not a Director of the company. In the aforesaid circumstances there cannot be any liability on the applicant and any negotiations done were entirely with the company except for the alleged tender documents having been sent through the applicant in the capacity as mentioned aforesaid. The tenders were in respect of 42 vehicles to be supplied as Mobile Medical Units pertaining to seven districts and they were to be fitted and installed with certain equipments including a 2 KVA Genset. According to the applicant the said mobile units were supplied to upon an upgradation of the genset from 2 KVA to 5 KVA which was negotiated by the company directly with M/s. GM Motors and accordingly within the same amount that had been negotiated the gensets were installed without causing any financial burden or financial loss, as alleged, on the Government. The contention is that the supplies were made in three phases. One from April to June 2011 and a sum of Rs.1,48,74,941/- was paid which was 85 % of the amount that was in relation to supply and operation between the said period. During July to September, 2011 supplies were made to the tune of Rs.2,31,26,961/- and the entire amount still remained unpaid. Similarly between October to December 2011 the supply amount is Rs.2,31,88,607/- which has also not been paid. Consequently, according to Sri Kumar after December, 2011 a sum of Rs.6,38,15,552/- was due to the company against which Rs.1,74,99,931/- was only paid, as a result of this a sum of Rs.4,89,40,611/- is still outstanding against the Government. In addition thereto the bank guarantee has also been given by the Executive Director. Apart from this a performance security of 10% was also one of the conditions for a period of five years which was altered to one year. This has also been made one of the charges apart form the upgradation of the genset. The contention is that this was also done by the Directors of the Company and not by the applicant. The third major charge against the applicant is with regard to raising of bills in relation to fabrication which ought to have been done separately through the fabricators. It is on these charges that the applicant is now being prosecuted and it is urged that as a matter of fact the applicant cannot be anywhere indicted for any loss having been caused to the State Government by his act either overt or covert. He has then relied on a supplementary affidavit dated 20.3.2015 to contend that these facts have been explained in this affidavit and consequently as a matter of fact on record there is nothing to show that the applicant was in any way responsible for causing any loss to the State Government and if at all it was done then it was the liability of the company and not of the applicant who was a mere power of attorney holder. Learned counsel is directed to further clarify the alleged amount of loss caused keeping in view the letter dated 2.2.2015 Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit coupled with the consequential letter dated 20.2.2015 and the reply sent by the company during negotiations with State Government. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. may also verify these facts and file a response to the supplementary affidavit. List in the next cause list. Order Date :- 24.7.2015"
(2.) Thereafter, Sri Jafri, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., invited the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit as also the information received to contend that the applicant's involvement is clearly writ large as he had negotiated the tenders and it was he, who had executed the work on behalf of M/s Jain Video on Wheels Company to obtain the contract in favour of the company of which he is admittedly a Vice-President. The mere receipt of salary as a Vice President does not alter his status as alleged.
(3.) Sri Dilip Kumar, advancing his submissions, has urged that the applicant has through out cooperated with the investigation and in the absence of any financial loss as alleged, there is no occasion for this applicant to make any offer for any deposit as has been done by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Awasthi's case in the order dated 14.7.2015. Sri Dilip Kumar has vehemently urged that as a matter of fact there is no liability existing, and even if it is so, then it is either Mr. Ankur Jain who has already been granted bail by this Court or it is Shalini Dhanda, who has been allowed to appear through Counsel before the the court below. Thus, it is only the applicant who is behind bars and who has not committed any such offence nor there is any material against him so as to warrant his further detention.;