VIJAY PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the bail applications are heard together, as they arose from the same F.I.R. Heard Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

(2.) A counter affidavit filed in A.B.A. No. 3981 of 2010 C.B.I. In the entire counter affidavit no where it is stated that there was any agreement between petitioners and ESM company for committing the present crime. On query, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, after going through the case diary, has not been able to show any evidence that petitioners and Directors of ESM company had ever conspired for committing present crime. However, it is submitted by Mr. Khan that since the petitioners gave certificate that the work of ESM company is satisfactory, therefore, it can be presumed that they entered into conspiracy with the ESM company. It is also submitted by Sri Khan that it is the obligation of petitioners to ensure compliance of MOU. The aforesaid contention appears to be misconceived. At paragraph no. 7 of the MOU, it is clearly mentioned that DGR will make random check up to ensure compliance of the terms and conditions laid down in the MOU. It is also mentioned in the MOU that if the DGR will found anything invariance with the MOU provisions, his office will inform CIL for initiating suitable action against the ESM company. As noticed above, it is admitted by C.B.I. that DGR has not made any random check up nor recommended for cancellation of sponsorship.