RATISH KUMAR SINGH V. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACB THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

A.B.A./2717/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Ratish Kumar Singh, the proprietor of M/s Shanti Endhan, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of misuse of coal supplied under a Fuel Supply Agreement by M/s BCCL, Dhanbad. The coal was allegedly not used in the designated plant but sold in the open market at a higher price, causing financial loss to M/s BCCL and wrongful gain to the petitioner. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged Singh under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging a criminal conspiracy and submission of false documents. The defense argued that the terms of the agreement were not violated as the title of the goods was transferred, and the officials of M/s BCCL were equally responsible, yet not charged. The CBI contended that the coal was misused and the documents submitted by Singh were forged. The court's decision to grant anticipatory bail was influenced by the lack of direct evidence of criminality on Singh's part and the precedent of similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686039 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: A.B.A. No. 839 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 842 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 1800 of 2020, A.B.A. No. 1978 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Code of Criminal Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH SINGH
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Criminal conspiracy; Forged documents; Fuel Supply Agreement; Misuse of coal
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(d); 420; 120B; 438(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2717 of 2020 -------- Ratish Kumar Singh, S/o Late Tarkeshwarnath Singh, R/o Shastri Nagar (East), Joraphatak Road, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through The CBI, ACB, Karmik Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhella, District- Dhanbad, through Superintendent of Police. 2. Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi, Karmik Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhella, District- Dhanbad. … … Opposite Parties -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate -------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through Video Conferencing -------- C.A.V. ORDER -------- 08/22.06.2021 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the CBI. The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 09(A)/2011-D, registered for the offences punishable u/s 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case as alleged is that M/s Bandana Fuel Industries, Rohtas and M/s Shanti Endhan had been allotted linkage quota of coal under Fuel Supply Agreement from M/s BCCL, Dhanbad for compulsory utilization in their respective plants at a notified price which is much less than the price of coal sold through e-auction. It has been alleged that M/s BCCL had supplied 54100 MT and 23918 MT of coal to M/s Bandana Fuel Industries and M/s Shanti Endhan for the period from July, 2008 to May 2010 and August, 2008 to April 2010. It has been alleged that Udayan Bhattacharya the then General Manager (S&M), BCCL, Dhanbad signed the said Fuel Supply Agreement with the aforesaid firms. The -2- firms had lifted the coal quantity at a notified price under the provisions of Fuel Supply Agreement for its compulsory use in their respective plants but in effect both the firms did not not utilize the said coal quantity in their respective plants and sold the same in open market at a much higher price during the above mentioned period whereas the General Manager (S&M) BCCL, Dhanbad did not inspect/verify as per the provisions of the Fuel Supply Agreement in connivance with the firms. On the basis of the aforesaid information a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Dhanbad and it was detected that Udayan Bhattacharya the then General Manager (S&M), BCCL, Dhanbad had entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Bandana Fuel Industries and M/s Shanti Endhan and signed the Fuel Supply Agreements on behalf of M/s BCCL with them on 30.06.2008 and 30.07.2008 and at no point of time Udayan Bhattacharya while functioning in the said capacity inspected the premises of the said firms to ascertain the end use of coal by them. It has also been alleged that the petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s Shanti Endhan had submitted false documents in support of the end use of quantity of 23918 MT of coal for the period from August 2008 to April 2010 but the same was sold in the open market at a premium which caused a wrongful loss of Rs. 1,16,44,095/- to M/s BCCL and corresponding wrongful gain to the proprietor of M/s Shanti Endhan. It has also been alleged that Udayan Bhattacharya did not comply with the provisions of Clause 4.4 of the Fuel Supply Agreement by not inspecting the premises of the said firms in connivance with the other accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations R.C. Case No. 09(A)/2011-D, was instituted for the offences punishable u/s -3- 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been submitted by Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner while making a reference to the terms and conditions of the Fuel Supply Agreement more specifically to Clause 8 while stating that once the title of the goods is transferred no offence is said to have been committed. It has also been stated that the manner in which the goods are used cannot be a cause for prosecution. Mr. Singh further submits that if at all an offence is said to have been committed the officials of M/s BCCL were equally responsible but Sri Udayan Bhattacharya the then General Manager (S&M), BCCL, Dhanbad was never charge-sheeted by the CBI. He submits that at best it can be a case of breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. He adds that the prosecution of the petitioner cannot proceeded on mere presumption. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the coal pursuant to the Fuel Supply Agreement was lifted by the petitioner but was not utilized in the plant. Therefore it was deemed to have been misused and sold in the open market. While referring to the charge- sheet Mr. Sinha submits that the petitioner had submitted documents pursuant to the demand made by M/s BCCL and the cash memos claiming purchase of diesel from M/s Khan Filling Station were found to be forged and fabricated as there was no existence of any petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Khan Filling Station. According to Mr. Sinha this shows that there was a dishonest intention from the side of the petitioner since the very inception of the transaction. He adds that Sri Udayan Bhattacharya was not of the knowledge that the papers produced by the firm were -4- not in order and no criminality having being detected on his part he was rightly not sent up for trial. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Shanti Endhan. The charge-sheet reveals various irregularities which were detected in the functioning of the unit which prompted the CBI to come to a conclusion regarding misuse of the coal lifted by the petitioner. It has been stated that the unit was non functional since long but at the same time reference has been made to the letter of the GM, DIC, Lucknow which indicates that the plant was ready for production. The firm had not filed any return showing payment of commercial tax w.e.f. 01.01.2008 to May, 2011 and the statement produced by the Income Tax Department disclosed that for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 power and fuel expenses were shown as nil. The charge-sheet does not reveal any active intent shown by the officials of M/s BCCL to verify whether the coal lifted was properly being utilized or not barring some letters seeking response to the end use of the coal. There is nothing on record to show that prior to entering into the Fuel Supply Agreement and during the subsistence of the agreement any physical verification of the unit was made though the duty of the officials of M/s BCCL was to act as sentinels. Clause 4.4 of the Fuel Supply Agreement indicates the violations if made by the purchaser which would lead to termination of the agreement. The diversion of the coal purchased as is the allegation in the present case would have ordained the BCCL in terminating the agreement. It appears that with similar allegations of diversion though in different cases several co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 839 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 842 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 1800 of 2020 and A.B.A. No. 1978 of 2020. -5- On consideration of the entire facts of the case as enumerated above as well as the grounds taken by the learned counsels for the respective parties, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 09(A)/2011-D, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application stands allowed. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/- "