Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45341 of 2013 (4) dt.22-11-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45341 of 2013 ====================================================== Amit Kumar @ Amit Ranjan S/O Sh. Mohan Prasad, Resident Of Mohalla- Shiv Chandra Path, Block of S.V.D. School, Kali Mandir Road, Hanuman Nagar, Patna, P.S- Patrakar Nagar Kankerbagh, District- Patna. 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The State Of Bihar through Department Of Vigilance, Bihar, Patna. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Spl. P.P. (Vig.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 22-11-2013
Legal Reasoning
has been taken up by this Court in Public Interest Litigation being C.W.J.C. No. 328 of 2013. Noticing the fact that said Mohan Prasad had made payment contrary to the agreement without withholding the said 5% of amount, this court observed that said amount be recovered from him under Public Demand Recovery Act. Mohan Prasad is said to have deposited more than the amount which was required to be recovered and which amount was found to have been paid in excess to the supplier by him without Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45341 of 2013 (4) dt.22-11-2013 deducting 5% as contemplated under the agreement. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the allegation against the petitioner that he did not supply the equipment as per the tender. He submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had supplied the machines but, could not be installed in the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital because space for installation and maintenance of the said machine was not provided to the petitioner, the supplier. My attention has been drawn to the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 328 of 2013 wherein a Division Bench of this Court had taken note of the fact that the medical equipments which were lying unutilized have since been installed at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hosptial, Rajbanshi Nagar, and three out of four such machines had started functioning and were being utilized. Only one machine out of four i.e. ‘Gate Analyzer’ could not be made functional due to software problems. Observation of the Division Bench of this Court is based on an affidavit filed on behalf of the Health Department, Government of Bihar.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance Department. The petitioner is accused in Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 285 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The essence of the allegation is that against a tender floated by the Bihar College of Physio-Therapy and Occupational Therapy, Viklang Bhawan Hospital, Kankarbagh, Patna, for supply of certain medical equipment, the petitioner was also a bidder and was finally awarded the tender. Father of the petitioner Mohan Prasad happened to be the Head of the Department and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45341 of 2013 (4) dt.22-11-2013 Controller of the said college. The allegation is that said Mohan Prasad and Amit Kumar i.e. this Petitioner, committed irregularities in supply of the equipment and thus, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 18,10,998/-. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Mohan Prasad has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41229 of 2013. This is to be noted that allegation against Mohan Prasad was that he was required to deduct 5% of total payable amount to the supplier till installation of the equipments but, without deducting the said amount he made final payments to this petitioner who happens to be his son though the equipments were not installed. This is also to be noted that matter relating to irregularities in purchase and installation of the said equipments,
Decision
In view of the above facts, learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the allegation that sub-standard machines were supplied by the petitioner is not sustainable. He Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45341 of 2013 (4) dt.22-11-2013 further submits that in any view of the matter, there is no chance of petitioner absconding from the course of justice and contends that the petitioner will undertake to present himself before the trial Court on each and every date required for his appearance. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has contended that the petitioner supplied sub-standard medical equipments and, thus, has committed serious offence affecting public health. He submits that in such circumstance, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Having heard the rival submissions on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that co-accused Mohan Prasad has been granted regular bail by this Court and the fact that there is no dispute that medical equipments supplied by the petitioner have not been installed and three out of four are, in fact, functional and which are being utilized, I do not find any reason to refuse the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. In view of the above, let the petitioner Amit Kumar, in the event of his arrest / surrender within six weeks from today before the Court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45341 of 2013 (4) dt.22-11-2013 each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance 1st, Patna, in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 258 of 2013 corresponding to Special Case No. 53 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. This is subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall appear before the court below as and when required and in the event of default on two consecutive occasions, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled. Saif/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)