Rajesh Kumar Fogla v. The State of Jharkhand through CBI
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 9889 of 2013 Rajesh Kumar Fogla Versus The State of Jharkhand through CBI -------- ....... … Petitioner .…. … Opposite Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner For the CBI ------ : : ------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, S.C. (CBI) 4/ 17.12.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned S.C. for the CBI. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with R.C. Case No. 11(A)/2009-AHD-R. The case relates to 'Medical Scam' in the State of Jharkhand, in which, there is allegation against the high officials of the Department of Health including the Minister, that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and by abusing their respective official positions as Public Servants, they fraudulently and dishonestly purchased medicines, medical equipments / appliances etc., used in hospitals, worth Rs. 1,30,50,79,951.74, out of the fund allotted for National Rural Health Mission, sponsored and financed by the Government of India, at highly inflated rates for huge wrongful gains. The petitioner was not initially made accused in this case, but the role played by the petitioner came to light during investigation of the case, when it was found that being the son of the proprietor of a supplying firm, there was allegation against him to bribe the high officials of the Department including the Minister, to the tune of Rs. 8,39,00,000/- for getting purchase orders at highly inflated rates. It was also found that the articles, which were supplied by the petitioner at highly inflated rates, were useless for medical purposes. Considering the merits of the case, the bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 21.1.2013 in B.A. No. 3980 of 2012. The petitioner thereafter moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.A.(Cr.) No. 1559 of 2013, which was rejected by the Apex Court by order dated 10.5.2013 in the following terms:- “Heard. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at this stage submits that for the past nearly two years the trial court has not heard the matter for framing of charges. Even the documents required to be supplied to the accused persons have not been supplied even though the petitioner is languishing in jail. He submits that an appropriate direction could be issued to the trial court to expedite the matter so far as the framing of charges are -2- concerned. Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not oppose that prayer. In the circumstances, we direct that the trial court shall expedite hearing of arguments on framing of charges and pass orders as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We further direct that after framing of charges the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail which may be considered by the trial court on its merits. The trial court would do well to curb any tendency of the part of any counsel or accused to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the matter by it”. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed application in the Court below on 21.5.2013 stating that four months’ time was granted by the Apex Court for framing of charge but till date, the CBI had not supplied the entire police papers to the petitioner and some of the police papers, which were supplied to him, were illegible. To the contrary, the stand of the CBI was that most of the police papers had been supplied to him and some of the police papers were very voluminous. As such, the CBI had not filed the copy of these documents, but the CBI filed a petition in the Court on 13.9.2013 stating that the accused person may be directed to inspect the remaining documents which were voluminous. In view of the non-supply of the police papers, the petitioner again prayed for bail in view of the order passed by the Apex Court and the said application was again rejected by the Court below by order dated 23.9.2013, stating that charge could not be framed by the Court due to non-supply of the entire police paper to the accused persons and some of the papers supplied, were not legible. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner moved this Court for grant of bail submitting that the direction of the Apex Court has been flouted by the CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge could not be framed in this case due to non-supply of the entire police papers to the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2011 itself, i.e., more than two years. It is submitted that all other accused persons, including the Minister and the then Secretary of the Department, have already been granted bail in this case, either by the Apex Court or by this Court, and the last such order was passed by this Court in the case of co-accused Prodyt Mukherjee, who was then functioning in the Department on deputation from the office of the Accountant General. The said co-accused Prodyt Mukherjee was granted bail by order dated 19.11.2013 in B.A. No. 8892 of 2013, which also shows that all other co-accused persons have already been granted bail taking into consideration the fact that they were in custody for more than two years. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail of the petitioner as well. Learned counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that there are some genuine difficulties in supplying the police papers to the accused persons, due to the fact that some of the police papers were very -3- voluminous and the CBI has also moved the Apex Court for extension of time. It is, however, admitted that the said application for extension of time has been filed on 31.10.2013, i.e., after expiry of the period granted by the Apex Court and no order has yet been passed by the Apex Court. After having heard the rival contentions of learned counsels for both parties and upon going through the record, I am of the considered view that the order of the Apex Court has not been complied with in this case and the police papers have not yet been supplied to the petitioner, which has resulted in non-consideration of the case of the petitioner on the point of charge, and the fact remains that the petitioner has remained in custody since 16.11.2011, i.e., more than two years and on the same ground, other co-accused persons have already been granted bail. Accordingly, taking into consideration the period of custody of the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Fogla, as also the fact that the time granted by the Apex Court for framing the charge has already expired, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, in connection with R.C. 11(A)/2009-AHD-R. It is made clear that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner shall not leave the Country without the permission of the Trial Court and shall deposit his passport in the Court below, which shall be kept in the custody of the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. If the petitioner is not having any passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the Court below. The petitioner shall also keep himself aloof from the witnesses during trial. If anything is found to show that the petitioner is influencing any of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet in any manner whatsoever, the C.B.I. would be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner, which shall be considered by the Court below on its own merits without being influenced by this order. R.Kr. ( H. C. Mishra, J.)