HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned S.C. for the C.B.I. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with R.C. Case no. 14 (A)/2009 -AHD -R.
(2.) THE petitioner, is an I.A.S. Officer, who was posted as Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi during the period 2008 -09. During the said period he was also heading the National Rural Health Mission in the State of Jharkhand. There is allegation against him that even though there was no requirement of purchasing any Mobile Medical Unit (in short "MMU") as sufficient MMUs were already there in the State, but the petitioner had purchased 79 MMUs by offering exorbitant rates and also without approval of the National Rural Health Mission. In this connection, there is allegation against the petitioner that the price fixed for MMU by the Government of India was 23.75 lacs per unit, whereas the petitioner spent Rs. 47 lacs + taxes per unit as well as the cost of chassis, for which, a total bill of Rs. 41,77,12,500/ - was submitted by the concerned Company, against which payment was also made to the tune of Rs. 40,07,92,500/ - and the residual amount of Rs. 1,69,20,000/ - was remained to be paid. It is also alleged that instead of paying advance of 70% of the total amount to the concerned Company, namely, M/s BEBBCO, 90% advance was made. It is further alleged that three quotations in response to verbal inquiry were obtained from three tenderers, namely, M/S BEBBCO, M/s Bharat Automobiles Pvt. Ltd and M/s Metal Crown Industries and all these tenders were managed after expiry of due date by one Shyamal Chakraverty, who is said to be a close associate of the petitioner. Mainly with these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and other co -accused persons. Learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Though there is allegation against the petitioner to have purchased MMUs at exorbitant rates, but Learned Counsel has given the comparative prices of the MMUs purchased in the State of Jharkhand during the tenure of the petitioner and MMUs purchased in other States, as also in the State of Jharkhand prior to the petitioner's tenure. It is stated that in the State of Uttanranchal, MMUs were purchased at the rate of Rs. 60.00 lacs per unit, in the State of Pondicherry, they were purchased at the rate of Rs. 98.00 lacs per unit, in the State of Assam, purchases were made at the rate of Rs. 52.5 lacs per unit and even in the State of Jharkhand during 2007 -08, the same were purchased at the rate of Rs. 67.5 lacs per unit, whereas, during the tenure of the petitioner, MMUs were purchased at the rate of Rs. 51.5 lacs per unit including the cost of chassis. Learned Counsel further submitted that purchases made by the petitioner were approved by the Governing Body headed by the Chief Secretary of the State. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the entire charge sheet, there is no allegation at all against the petitioner to have received any pecuniary benefit in purchasing the MMUs. Learned Counsel has also submitted other co -accused, namely, Krishna Bhalotia, Naveen Bhalotia, Gajanand Bhalotia and also Shyamal Chakravarty, who is alleged to be the close associate of this petitioner, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and one Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh has been granted provisional bail on medical grounds. Learned Counsel has accordingly prayed for bail.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have made purchases in spite of the fact that according to the guidelines of the Government of India, only one MMU is required for one district and the State of Jharkhand was already having 24 MMUs and as such, there was no requirement for purchase of any MMU at all. The petitioner, without taking approval of the National Rural Health Mission and the Government of India, had purchased 79 MMUs and that too, after managing the tenders through his close associate from a single firm and purchases were made at exorbitant rates, inasmuch as, against the approved price of Rs. 23.75 lacs per unit, the same were purchased approximately at the rate of Rs. 51.5 lacs per unit. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by stating that in the State of Jharkhand, MMUs were earlier purchased at the rate of Rs. 67.5 lacs per unit, in view of the fact that earlier -3 -purchased MMUs were larger in size and were built on the chassis of luxury bus, whereas the purchases made by the petitioner are smaller in size and are built on Tata 407 chassis and appear to be as mini bus. As regards, MMUs purchased in other States, Learned Counsel fairly submitted that they were not the matter under consideration before the CBI and no investigation in this regard was made. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand was questioned by the CBI with regard to the approval granted by the Governing Body headed by him, to which, the Chief Secretary had replied that he had been misrepresented by the petitioner being the Secretary and relying on his representation, approval was given by the Governing Body. With these submissions, Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.;