- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned S.C. for the CBI. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with R.C. Case No. 11(A)/2009 -AHD -R.
(2.) THE case relates to 'Medical Scam' in the State of Jharkhand, in which, there is allegation against the high officials of the Department of Health including the Minister, that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and by abusing their respective official positions as Public Servants, they fraudulently and dishonestly purchased medicines, medical equipments / appliances etc., used in hospitals, worth Rs. 1,30,50,79,951.74, out of the fund allotted for National Rural Health Mission, sponsored and financed by the Government of India, at highly inflated rates for huge wrongful gains. The petitioner was not initially made accused in this case, but the role played by the petitioner came to light during investigation of the case, when it was found that being the son of the proprietor of a supplying firm, there was allegation against him to bribe the high officials of the Department including the Minister, to the tune of Rs. 8,39,00,000/ - for getting purchase orders at highly inflated rates. It was also found that the articles, which were supplied by the petitioner at highly inflated rates, were useless for medical purposes. Considering the merits of the case, the bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 21.1.2013 in B.A. No. 3980 of 2012. The petitioner thereafter moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.A.(Cr.) No. 1559 of 2013, which was rejected by the Apex Court by order dated 10.5.2013 in the following terms: - "Heard. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at this stage submits that for the past nearly two years the trial court has not heard the matter for framing of charges. Even the documents required to be supplied to the accused persons have not been supplied even though the petitioner is languishing in jail. He submits that an appropriate direction could be issued to the trial court to expedite the matter so far as the framing of charges are concerned. Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not oppose that prayer. In the circumstances, we direct that the trial court shall expedite hearing of arguments on framing of charges and pass orders as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We further direct that after framing of charges the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail which may be considered by the trial court on its merits. The trial court would do well to curb any tendency of the part of any counsel or accused to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the matter by it".
(3.) PURSUANT to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed application in the Court below on 21.5.2013 stating that four months' time was granted by the Apex Court for framing of charge but till date, the CBI had not supplied the entire police papers to the petitioner and some of the police papers, which were supplied to him, were illegible. To the contrary, the stand of the CBI was that most of the police papers had been supplied to him and some of the police papers were very voluminous. As such, the CBI had not filed the copy of these documents, but the CBI filed a petition in the Court on 13.9.2013 stating that the accused person may be directed to inspect the remaining documents which were voluminous.;