High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:11197 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR MCRCA No. 327 of 202 5 • Awadhesh Singh Gautam S/o Mr. Ranjit Singh Gautam Aged About 55 Years R/o Nakulnar, Distt.- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant • The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station- Kirandul, Distt.- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Adv. & Ms. Saloni Verma, Adv. For Respondent-State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General
Decision
Hon'ble Shri ORDER ON BOARD Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/03/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Applicant has filed this first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 11/2025 registered at Police Station –Kirandul, District Dantewada (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B of IPC. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that applicant Awadhesh Singh Gautam, Contractor, was awarded a contract of Rs 357.30 lakh for the construction of 3 ½ kilometers of road from Madkamiras to Hiroli Health Center and 3 ½ kilometers from Hilori Health Center to Dokapara at a rate of 10.10 percent above the SOR. The total cost of this road construction was proposed to be 2 / 6 Rs 473.43 lakh. The irregularities in this road construction were investigated by the investigation committee constituted by Collector Dantewada, in which it was found that the contractor had deliberately not followed the conditions of the tender and received extra payment. The Sub-Engineer was found to have made wrong entries in the measurement book. The Assistant Engineer made the payment negligently without supervision. In the investigation, it was found that an entry of Rs. 4,27,26,441/- was found in the bill measurement book, out of which Rs. 3,55,82,055/- was wrongly paid to the contractor. Shoulder work has been done by cutting the soil near the road. The investigation committee has recommended to recover Rs. 2,01,06,117/- from the applicant Awadhesh Singh Gautam and blacklist him and investigate his other construction works. On the written complaint of Assistant Engineer Rakesh Kumar Nagesh, Police Station Dantewada has registered Crime No. 11/2025 against the applicant and others under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120 (B) IPC and investigation proceedings are underway. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent, he has not committed any such offence as alleged, false and baseless allegations have been levelled against him. Applicant’s firm was awarded the work of construction of roads as mentioned in above paragraph through fair and transparent tender process which was neither objected by any of the co- bidder nor challenged before any court of law. The tendering authority has already taken recourse by way of initiating recovery of alleged excess amount of Rs. 2,01,06,117/- in the form of revenue proceedings. The demand note bearing No.1201/Reader-1/2024 dated 16.12.2024 was issued to applicant under Section 146 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 by the Tahsildar, Badbacheli in the revenue proceedings, whereby the applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,01,06,117/- within a period of ten days, failing which, coercive action is proposed to be taken in accordance with law, which is put to challenge before this Court in WPC No. 436/2025 and this Hon’ble 3 / 6 Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 has quashed the same. The inspection and evaluation of the subject work undertaken by applicant’s firm have been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice as the applicant was not given any prior show cause notice or any opportunity to participate in the inspection and evaluation allegedly conducted in relation to the work being undertaken by his firm except a demand notice dated 16.12.2024 and notice of hearing dated 27.12.2024. It is further stated that neither the applicant nor his firm was ever served upon the copy of alleged inspection and evaluation reports, he on his own obtained the report submitted by Superintending Engineer, CGRRDA, Project Implementation Unit-I Bastar, in which it is recorded that the applicant’s firm in no manner is found guilty of the allegations levelled against it. The FIR under the aforementioned offences is based on mere allegations without any cogent evidence, there is no prima facie material to establish criminal intent, forgery or misrepresentation. The applicant’s firm has executed the subject work in utmost good faith and in strict compliance and there is no fraudulent intent or dishonest intention. There is no evidence that the applicant had any role of nature whatsoever of forging any document or interpolating the bid documents submitted by his firm. Mere allegation of such nature cannot substitute for concrete proof, essential ingredients of a criminal offence viz. mens rea are absolutely absent in this case. It is further stated that applicant is suffering from multiple serious health conditions including a fractured right leg due to an accident, he is also undergoing kidney treatment and other health related issues. There is no criminal record against applicant and has never been involved in any criminal activity. The applicant has shown willingness to cooperate with the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding. Hence, applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that serious allegations have 4 / 6 been levelled against applicant. The applicant is accused of committing forgery with the intention of earning more profit in collusion with other officials, creating false documents and using them as genuine and dishonestly misusing government money of Rs. 2,01,06,117/- and embezzling it committed irregularities in the construction of a road. It is stated that proceedings in revenue case No. A-76/202412160600079/2024-25 have been initiated for recovery of amount wherein on 27.12.2024 applicant received a notice of hearing, appearance and directing the applicant to pay aforesaid amount. As per the investigation and evaluation report the aforesaid sum ie., Rs. 2,01,06,117/- has to be recovered from applicant in the form of arrears of land revenue. Applicant has committed serious scam and financial irregularities involving the work of construction of road and has claimed amount without actually performing the proper work of construction of road. It is submitted that the Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada vide order dated 01.04.2024 has also constituted a team of five members from the Revenue Department, PWD, Public Health Engineering Department as also the Panchayat and Rural Development Department to examine the complaint. The enquiry report culminates in finding that the applicant has been paid excess amount of Rs. 2,01,06,117/- without actually doing the work Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant, submission of learned counsel for parties, in particular the submission of learned counsel for applicant that the demand note dated 16.12.2024 in the revenue proceedings by which applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,01,06,117/- which was put to challenge in WPC No. 436/2025 has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 and also that the charges levied against the applicant are 5 / 6 indeed serious and involve criminal conspiracy and fraud on a large scale. The offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, and 120B IPC have far- reaching consequences for both the public and private interests. The applicant does not have a previous criminal record, and there is no substantial evidence to suggest that he is a flight risk. However, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out entirely, especially given the gravity of the offence. While custodial interrogation could provide further insights into the alleged conspiracy, there is no immediate evidence suggesting that such an interrogation is required for the investigation to progress. However, considering the seriousness of the case, the court believes that custodial interrogation may be required for a thorough investigation into the conspiracy and the involvement of other parties. The applicant has expressed his intention to fully cooperate and is willing to submit to questioning and examination by the Investigating Officer (IO) as necessary. The applicant is, therefore, required to provide assurances that he will cooperate fully with the investigation and will not obstruct or influence the case in any way. The court finds that there are no sufficient grounds to deny the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The allegations, though serious, do not, at this stage, warrant the applicant’s custodial arrest, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds that the applicant has made a prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant –Awadhesh Singh Gautam on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court. 6 / 6 (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission and shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant along with the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The Applicant shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. pwn Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice