A KRISHNA REDDY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case RC- DAI-2010-A-0044 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short `the PC Act').

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that none of the allegations made against the Petitioner disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 476 of IPC. The allegations are vague and bald. There is no material annexed to the charge sheet to establish any of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. No allegation has been made against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The Petitioner has joined the investigation and appeared before the Investigating Officer on 7th February, 2011, 11th February, 2011 and 12th February, 2011 and was interrogated till late hours of night. A search was also conducted on 11th February, 2011 and 31st February, 2011 and possession of all the documents from the office was taken. Proclamation made under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is based on the allegation of non-appearance of the Petitioner before the Investigating Officer on14th March, 2011 and 20 th April, 2011 when he was not even an accused. The name of the Petitioner for the first time was shown as an accused on the date of filing of the charge sheet on 20th May, 2011 and the Petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender on 23 rd May, 2011. Admittedly, there is no written contract between M/s Gem International and M/s Swiss Timing Limited (STL). Further there was no bar imposed on STL prohibiting it to enter into sub-contract with another company/firm.

(3.) IN view of these facts, I do not find any merit in the application. The application is accordingly dismissed.