The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8123 of 2024 Syed Hasnain Ahmed ..... Petitioner Republic Of India -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Sudeep Kumar Sarangi, Senior Advocate Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. Sarthak Nayak CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 30.08.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-CBI. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner for bail in connection with R.C. No.10(A) of 2024, corresponding to CBI/AC-II/New Delhi P.S Case No.RC2172024A0010 dated 28.06.2024, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar, for alleged commission of offences under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is Page 1 of 5. in custody since 29.06.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially and that further custodial interrogation of the Petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the fact that the Petitioner has already been in custody for more than two months. With regard to the prosecution allegation, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that an allegation was made against the Petitioner that Ms. Soumi Bhatachariya, who participated in the tender on behalf of an unknown firm and that firm has been declared as L-1, was accompanied from Kilkata to Bhubabneswar by the Petitioner, who is in conspiracy with Ms. Soumi Bhatachariya for obtaining tender for transporting of food grains from FCI in lieu of bribe. He further contended that the tender was floated to the GEM Portal, Government of India. He further submitted that the Petitioner has been implicated in the present case at the instance of the contractor. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of the release of the Petitioner on bail. 5. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, on the other hand, objected to the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that the allegation leveled against the Petitioner are grave and serious in nature. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the CBI, further referring to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, submitted that the present Petitioner is the co-conspirator. He further submitted that one Prem Singh Bhanot, who was working as a General Manger at FCI, has aided and favoured one Ms. Soumi Bhattachariya who participated in the tender on behalf of an unknown firm, and that firm has been declared as L-1. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that on Page 2 of 5. 14.06.2024, the Prem Singh Bhanot asked the middle man, one Swapan Kumar Ghosal to inform the above-named Ms. Soumi Bhattachariya to give Rs.5,00,000/- as bribe in lieu of the favour shown to the tenderer. In obedience of such request. on 20.06.2024, the above-named middle man informed the tenderer to meet the Prem Singh Bhanot at the earliest and fulfil his demands. Further, it has been alleged that the above- named tenderer assured the Prem Singh Bhanot that she will deliver a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- at the Bhubaneswar Office on 27.06.2024 which was conveyed to the Prem Singh Bhanot by the middle man who had fixed the meeting between the tenderer and the Prem Singh Bhanot. Accordingly, the meeting took place on 27.06.2024 at Bhubaneswar and pursuant to such meeting on 28.06.2024 the tenderer informed the middle man that the Prem Singh Bhanot has given her his (Prem Singh Bhanot’s) house keys for delivery of the bribe money at his (Prem Singh Bhanot’s) residence. Accordingly, the bribe money to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs was delivered at the residence of the Prem Singh. On search of the residential premises of the Prem Singh Bhanot, in the presence of the independent witnesses, the bribe money has been seized. In such view of the matter, Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that considering the conduct of the present Petitioner and taking in account the circumjacent facts of the present case, a clear case under the PC Act is made out against the present Petitioner, therefore the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner should not be entertained at this juncture. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on the other hand, disputed the aforesaid allegations. While controverting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the CBI, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the amount seized Page 3 of 5. from the house of one Prem Singh Bhanot would amount to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.2.5 lakhs as has been alleged by the CBI in their counter-affidavit. Nevertheless, this court is of the view that such contentious factual and circumstantial aspects in the present matter are to be established by both sides during trial by adducing appropriate evidence. 7. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of allegation made against the present Petitioner, as well as the fact that the Petitioner is an Officer of the Food Corporation of India, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following terms and conditions: I) He shall cooperate with investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when required for the purpose of investigation; II) He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed without fail; III) He shall not tamper with any prosecution evidence while on bail; IV) He shall surrender his travel documents including passports if any before the trial court at the time of his release on bail; V) He shall not leave the jurisdiction without permission of the trial court. In the event any permission is sought for by him to leave the jurisdiction, the same shall be Page 4 of 5. considered liberally by the trial court; and VI) He shall appear before the S.P., CBI, Kolkata once in a week preferably on ‘Monday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. for a period of four weeks, thereafter once in fortnight for a period of six weeks. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 8. BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the CBI. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 02-Sep-2024 10:09:16 Page 5 of 5.