- (1.) HEARD Mr. Sidharath Shankar Ray, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
(2.) THE petitioners, who are all senior officers of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited have prayed for the privilege of Anticipatory Bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 9(A)/1997(D) under Sections 406, 407, 409, 420, 120 -B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 now pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (C.B.I. -cum -First Additional District and Sessions Judge), Dhanbad. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of Anticipatory Bail on account of the fact that investigations have revealed that each of them are responsible for causing loss to the exchequer through an offence which is now commonly known as the "Bitumen Scam". He refers to pages 51 to 57 of the petition and submits that these are the findings of the Central Bureau of. Investigation.
(3.) MR . Sldharth Shankar Ray, Senior Advocate, on the other hand, while referring to Annexure -3 herein, submits that so far as the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, sanction was not given because the sanctioning authority did not find any irregularities in the dealings of the petitioners who had discharge their official duties in the capacity of Officer of the Corporation. He further submits that during the course of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the petitioners had fully cooperated with them and till now, they have not given any occasion which can go to show that the petitioners would run away and would not face trial. He further submits that cognizance was taken on 11.6.2002 by the Special Judge, Dhanbad after considering the police report dated 31.12.2001 which was submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At that stage, nobody issued any warrants of arrest and the learned Special Judge had proceeded to issue only summons and not warrants of arrest. Mr. Ray further submitted that on 8.10.2002, the petitioner voluntarily filed an application under Section 205, even without summons having been served upon them. Thereafter, on 20.8.2003, without disposing of that application, the Court below passed an order of non -bailable warrants of arrest against these petitioners.;