PURUSHOTTAM DEV ARYA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case RCDAI-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.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the entire case was allegedly opened initially on the complaint of one Sangeeta Goyal. Pursuant to the complaint of Ms. Sangita Goyal, a letter was written by the CEO of the Organizing Committee to Shri Bhatnagar, the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Sports explaining that there was no illegality or irregularity in the contract awarded to M/s Swiss Timing Ltd., Switzerland (STL). The matter was examined by the members of various Committees including the Executive Board, the Finance Sub-Committee. Thus, the project was neither cleared by Mr. Bhanot nor Mr. Kalmadi against whom allegations of conspiracy have been made. The allegation of the prosecution that the contract was structured to favour STL is unfounded as there is no evidence with the CBI to show that the contract was structured in favour of STL . It is alleged that the prosecution has no evidence by way of document or otherwise to show that the contract was deliberately awarded to the company with mala fide intention. The contentions of the STL have not been heard. There was no complaint from any of the athletes that timings were incorrect. The third allegation of inflating the price is also unfounded. No decision can be taken thereon on the basis of opinion of 2 individuals, who themselves are not experts in the field. The best test to decide the price of the contract is on th principle of demand and supply. Despite number of Committees and large number of people, who were over all incharge, none found any illegality or irregularity in the contract. In India earlier also numbers of games have been organized by the STL successfully.

(3.) The allegation that the Petitioner did not join the investigation is wholly incorrect. The Petitioner was interrogated/ joined in investigation four times. Pursuant to the notice issued, whatever documents were asked, they were sent by courier and the courier receipt shows that 3 Kg. documents were sent. Reliance is placed on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 AIR(SC) 312 to say that balance deserves to be maintained between frivolous allegations and liberty at the stage of anticipatory bail. Reliance is also placed on Yogender Pratap Singh v. State, 2009 2 JCC 1314 to contend that if the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is mala fide then the Petitioner can approach the Court for anticipatory Bail.