- (1.) PRAYER made in the petition is for release of the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 2 dated 2.5.2012 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471 and 120 -B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad -I, Mohali (Punjab).
(2.) THE aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the writing sent by Balwant Singh, PPS, SP, Vigilance Bureau, Anti -crime Branch -2, Punjab, Chandigarh to the Station House Officer, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase -I, Punjab at Mohali. The said writing is reproduced herein -in -below: - "To The S.H.O., P.S. V.B., Ph. -1, Punjab at Mohali. An enquiry report from Housefed, Punjab dated 21.3.2012 has been received against the accused namely Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer, (Under suspension) and others for favour of conducting investigation after registration of the case FIR. As per the report, Housefed, Punjab had called tenders in June, 2010 for construction of 632 flats in duplex at Sector 79, Mohali. These tenders for an amount of Rs.34,18,17,665/ - and Rs.38,58,72,114/ - were allotted to different Firms namely M/s Manohar Lal Gupta and Company Pvt. Ltd., E.C. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Vantage Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The Technical Advisor to Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab had examined the estimates and the agreements of said tenders and as per his letter No.AEPB/102/F.F. dated 7.2.2010 (2011) the negligence has been found to have been committed by the Senior Engineering Staff of the Institution in the tendering process of those works. According to the report, in the departmental preliminary inquiry, it has been found that at the time of opening the tenders, the rates which were quoted by Rajinder Singh, later on, Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer (under suspension) having connived with the Contractor had been changed and had caused advantage of Rs.8,61,22,007/ - to the Agency. According to the inflated rates, an excess payment of Rs.5,09,98,581/ - has been made to the Agency upto October, 2011, which is direct loss to the Housefed and benefit of the same amount to the Agency. Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer, Housefed, Punjab having connived with Nishi Gupta, Director M/s Manohar Lal Gupta and Co. Pvt. Ltd., 103 -C, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, Hardeep Singh, Director M/s E.C. Construction Pvt. Ltd., 814, Shakuntla Building, Nehru Place, Delhi and Vijay Goel, Director, M/s Vantage Infratech Pvt. Ltd., 2484/8, 3rd Floor, Bandapura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, while misusing his official position, by preparing fake documents, deceitfully and fraudulently have caused loss to the tune of crores of rupees to Housefed. By doing so, Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer (under suspension), Housefed, Punjab r/o H.No. 48, Sector 27 -A, Chandigarh. Nishi Gupta, Director M/s Manohar Lal Gupta and Co. Pvt. Ltd, 103 -E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, Hardeep Singh, Director M/s E.C. Construction Pvt. Ltd., 814, Shankuntla Building, Nehru Place, Delhi and Vijay Goel, Director, M/s Vantage Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 2484/8, 3rd Floor, Bandapura, Karol Bagh, Delhi alongwith other officers/officials and other who were involved in the conspiracy had committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471, 120 -B IPC, Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) PC Act, 1988. Hence, the writing is being sent through H.C. Dhir Singh 550/RPR, for registration of case FIR under the above said Sections. After registration of the case FIR, the original writing alongwith the copy of FIR may be sent to the undersigned. I shall conduct the investigations personally. Today Sd/ -Balwant Singh, PPS, o/o V.B. A.C. Branch -2, S.P. V.B.A.C. Branch, Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab, Chandigarh At 11.30 a.m. 2.5.2012"
(3.) APPREHENDING his arrest, the petitioner had moved the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) for the grant of anticipatory bail but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 18.5.2012. The present petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 24.5.2012, when notice was issued to Advocate General, Punjab and interim bail granted to him, subject to his joining investigation. While issuing notice, the Court recorded the stand of the petitioner as under : - "Contends that though contract was taken by joint venture consisting of M/s Manohar Lal Gupta and Company Private Limited in which petitioner is a Managing Director, M/s E.C. Constructions Private Limited and M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited, Managing Director of whom is coaccused Vijay Goel and however, since the very beginning, Vijay Goel was authorized by all the three companies to do all the acts on behalf of the companies regarding the tender and he was to submit all the papers, sign agreements etc. on behalf of all the three companies with HOUSEFED. It is further submitted that in fact tender form was also signed by him as authorized person on behalf of all the three companies. It is further submitted that as work could not be started in time, there were reminder letters from the HOUSEFED in this direction to the joint venture and however, before the work could be started, company of present petitioner had withdrawn from the said work and even the other company i.e. M/s E.C. Constructions Private Limited had also withdrawn and M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited alone was allowed to execute this work. A letter in this regard was written to HOUSEFED which is annexure P -14 and the same was duly acknowledged vide annexure P -15 by the HOUSEFED which was sent to all the three companies and it was mentioned in the said letter by Superintending Engineer on behalf of HOUSEFED that only M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited was working in the said project and other companies were having no concern in any respect with the said project. It is further submitted that however, in the papers joint venture remained as tender was given to the joint venture. It is further submitted that thereafter the work was started by M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited in January, 2011 after petitioner's company had withdrawn. It has been further submitted that all the payments have been received by co -accused Vijay Goel and nothing has been received by the present petitioner. It has been further submitted that present complaint was filed in September, 2011 i.e. much after the petitioner had withdrawn from this joint venture. Hence, it is contended that fraud, if any, has been committed by coaccused Vijay Goel in connivance with officials/officers of HOUSEFED and the present petitioner has been implicated as an accused merely because he is Managing Director of a company which was part of a joint venture in whose favour tender was accepted by HOUSEFED, whereas everything was done by co -accused Vijay Goel who has already been arrested. Further contends that moreover, the present case is based on documentary evidence which are in the possession of Investigating Officer or the same can be obtained from HOUSEFED or from Vijay Goel or from Bank and hence, custodial interrogation of petitioner may not be necessary.";