JAYA ROY, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 409/420/423/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) MR . P.C.Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R but he has been implicated in this case falsely. The petitioner has joined I.V.R.C.L. at Luck No w on 01.08.2005 as Sr. Engineer. Thereafter, he was transferred from Luck No w to Ranchi for execution of work only on 10.12.2006. Thereafter, one letter was issued by D.K.Shrivastava, A.G.M. on 22.01.2007 by which the power has been delegated to the petitioner but No financial power was given to him and an office at Ashoknagar was opened on 27.12.2006 and the Company was entrusted to carry out the rural electrification work at Latehar, Palamau and Garhwa. The total package was for Rs. 500 Crore approximately. It is further submitted that due to the health problem the petitioner had sent a letter of his resignation on April, 2008 but the same was No t accepted. He again sent a second resignation letter on 01.07.2009 but the same was again No t accepted. Ultimately, his letter of resignation was accepted on 20.11.2009. He has further submitted that after resignation the office was raided on 23.12.2009 by the Income Tax Department and the petitioner cooperated fully with the Income Tax Department. It is further submitted that even on 17.01.2010 he was attacked by the miscreants at his residence and he received a bullet injury for which he was immediately admitted to Guru Nanak Hospital. Therefore, though he has discharged his duty as a Sr. Engineer of the Company neither he has received any illegal gratification No r there is anything to show his involvement in the present case. Mr. Tripathy has further submitted that the I.O. Cum Dy.S.P., Vigilance has issued a No tice to the petitioner for giving the statement under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner gave a reply to the said No tice. To support his contention the petitioner has annexed his reply given to the I.O. Cum Dy.S.P., Vigilance as Annexure -1 to his reply to the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I.
(3.) COUNSEL for the C.B.I., Mr.Mokhtar Khan has filed a detail counter affidavit in this case and submitted that earlier the Vigilance was the Incharge of the case but thereafter the case has been handed over to the C.B.I for investigation. He has further submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and he was engaged in five projects in the power Sector in the State of Jharkhand which are as follows: - 1.Latehar Package 'E' of JSEB 2.Garhwa Package 'F' of JSEB 3.Palamau Package 'G' of JSEB 4.Lohardaga -Latehar Package 'A' of JSEB 5.Latehar -Daltonganj Package 'B' of JSEB.;