IRFAN KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contractor undertaking small building repair works, particularly in the field of whitewashing and painting. A notice inviting tender was issued by the complainant (Department of Social Welfare) for, inter alia, whitewashing and painting of several buildings. The petitioner submitted his tender and was found to be the lowest one insofar as whitewashing was concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the opening of the tender, the petitioner, having been found to be the lowest one, was asked to do certain trial work and on completion of that work, the entire work was awarded to the petitioner. The order was placed on 03.05.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner not only completed the trial work but also the entire work and thereafter he requested for payment sometime in June 2003. As the petitioner was not paid, he made a further request in September 2003 and by a letter dated 20.03.2004 (a copy whereof is placed at page 51 of the paper book), the petitioner was informed that the details of his payment had been sent to the Directorate, Department of Social Welfare and that he would be informed as soon as a reply is received and the payment would be subject to the reply. As the petitioner did not receive any payment even thereafter, he sent a demand notice through his advocate on 21.06.2004 demanding a payment of Rs.10,66,979/- in respect of the whitewashing done by the petitioner in the three homes, namely, (i) Home for Disabled Infirmed Persons, (ii) After Care Home for Boys, and (iii) Children Home for Boys at Khadi Bhawan, Narela Delhi. Since there was no payment made despite the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit for recovery of the said amount in the District Court, Delhi. That suit is still pending. In the meanwhile, the FIR had been registered on 05.08.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the portion of the FIR which reads as under:- .... rates of Irfan Khan are exorbitant and work has not been completed. ?

(2.) To controvert this, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the rates quoted by the present petitioner and by the other tenderers, a comparative table of which is placed at page 22 of the paper book and an examination of the same reveals that, in point of fact, the rates quoted by the present petitioner were the lowest. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no case at all is made out inasmuch as no payment whatsoever has been made to the petitioner by the complainant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that this is a case where a private contractor was mixed up with three Superintendents and an attempt had been made to defraud the State to an extent of approximately Rs.10 lakhs by submission of fake bills. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel for the State pointed out that the most glaring aspect of the matter is that even before the work order was placed on 03.05.2003, the petitioner submitted two bills dated 15.04.2003 and 17.04.2003 for amounts Rs.43,246/- and Rs.48,270/- respectively and this in itself was sufficient to show that without there being any formal order or requirement, the petitioner had undertaken the work and had submitted the bills even before the work order had been placed on 03.05.2003. He further submitted that one of the said Government servants had been taken into custody and was released on bail only after 66 days in judicial custody. Therefore, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.