BICHITRANANDA MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is a petition under Section 439, of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in T.R. No. 26 of 2001 arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P. 5. Case No. 43 of 2000 now subjudice before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar.

(2.) Petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer, Rural Works, Bhubaneswar. Tersely put, the pith of the charge levelled against him is that he helped his son, Nalinikanta Muduli, who is one of the accused in this case, to obtain licence as a Special Class Contractor. That apart, coaccused Karunakar Mohanty, a Special Class Contractor being influenced by the present petitioner, issued a false experience certificate in favour of the said Nalinikanta Muduli to the effect that he is a Graduate Engineer basing on which he was granted licence as a Special Class Contractor. It is further alleged that the Committee of Chief Engineers, of which the petitioner happened to be one of the members, renewed the licence of the petitioners son for which he was instrumental and thereby abusing his official power in securing undue benefit for his son an act which is punishable under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. On the information lodged by the Inspector of Police. Vigilance Cell, Bhubaneswar, the aforesaid Vigilance case has been registered against the petitioner along with two others named above who have been charge sheeted after investigation is concluded.

(3.) Learned Counsel, Shri S.C. Parija, is representing the petitioner whereas Shri J.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department is representing the State. In course of hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the Department has vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had conspired with the coaccused with a view to cheating the authority deceitfully by forging certain documents and making use of the same knowing the same to be forged in order to secure financial benefit in favour of his son in support of which he relies on statements of witnesses including the members of the Committee of Chief Engineers recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. by the 1.0. during the investigation of the case. That apart, relying on Raj Kumar Sharma and others v. State (Delhi Administration), he has drawn my attention to the overriding considerations in granting bail to which the Apex Court adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1) Cr. P.C. of the new Code. They are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which in view of so many variable factors cannot exhaustively set out.