SUBODH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with R.C. Case No. 11(A)/2009R pending before Shri A.K. Gupta, Special Judge, Ranchi. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Junior Engineer and he has no power to verify the invoices, rather it was the duty of the Chief Engineer to verify the invoices. He has further contended that in one case Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the anticipatory bail of the accused of another case and directed if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in R.C. No. 20(A) of 2009(R) he shall be released on such conditions as may be considered necessary by the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner has annexed this order as Annexure7 in this application.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that the petitioner is the person, who has certified fake invoices submitted by the contractor and on the basis of verifying certificate, amount of bill, has been paid, which caused a great loss to the revenue. He has also submitted that in the case similar nature, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the prayer for regular bail of an Assistant Engineer after remaining in custody for more than a year in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1034 of 2012 Manish Kumar Versus C.B.I. vide order dated 2nd March, 2012. He has further pointed out regarding the coaccused Shyam Sunder Prasad, who has remained in custody for more than a year has been released on bail B.A. No. 9300 of 2012 vide order dated 21.12.2012 likewise other coaccused namely Bhuneshwar Mahto @ Bhuwaneshwar Mohto, has also been released on bail in B.A. No. 9282 of 2012 vide order dated 21.12.2012 after remaining in custody for more than a year. Mr. Khan has further pointed out that the petitioner has not remained in the custody even for a year, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.