LAWS(JHAR)-2016-9-32

SHYAM KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On September 19, 2016
SHYAM KISHORE SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

(2.) Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 1036 of 2015, registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. lodged on the basis of one written report given by Immanuel Tigga, Executive Engineer, Department of Rural Work Affairs, Gumla, alleging N.P.C.C. Ltd. (a Govt. of India Undertaking) has entered into an agreement for construction of different roads under the P.M.G.S.Y. in Gumla district and schemes were sanctioned for the Chainpur block, but there was some complaints received regarding the inferior quality of work and committee was constituted and technical team inspected and examined the construction of all the work and submitted a report. Petitioner is concerned with the scheme for construction of road from Chhatarpur Harra Road, in which total area is 4.7 kms and the total estimate is Rs. 165.48 lakhs and till date total payment was made to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 133.17 lakhs. The technical experts found that in place of thickness 150 mm, 90 mm road was constructed and in place of coal tar of 20 mm, 10 mm was found. Petitioner was the contractor of the aforesaid project.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner through supplementary affidavit has brought on record the second enquiry report dated 03.09.2015 and it was found that although project was complete, but the work on the flanks of the road was incomplete. They also found the work to be unsatisfactory. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is not a case where no work was done by the petitioner, rather the work was not found satisfactory, so no criminality is attributed to the petitioner and there is provisions under which amount can be recovered from the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.