Ravindran A.P. v. Central Bureau Of Investigation
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.A. No. 997 of 2019 • Ravindran A.P. S/o Late E.N. Nair Aged About 67 Years OccupationRetiered Area Personal Manager (Personal), R/o Parambil House, Post Edakkulam, District- Calicut, Kerla, 673306 ---- Applicant
Versus
• Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Station House Officer P.S.S.P.K. CBI, ACB, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate.
For C.B.I./respondent : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Asstt.S.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 29-07-2019
1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. RC1242014A0004, registered at Police Station- SP, CBI, ACB, District- Bhilai, Chhattisgarh for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of I.P.C. read with Section 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of P.C. Act, the applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no case is made out against this applicant. The applicant was listed as Area Personnel Manager of SECL. The allegation made against him in the F.I.R. lodged is misconceived. Similarly placed co-accused persons mainly K.B. Prasanna Kumar, who was posted as General Manager (Personnel) and P.V. Ramchandran, who was posted as Chief Manager (Security) have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Further, there is also information received that one co-accused Lt.Col. (Retd.) Vijendra Singh Yadav @ V.S. Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that this applicant is entitled for grant of
-2anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposes the application submitting that this is a case of huge fraud and the racket of the same has been blown by the C.B.I., in which this applicant had played an important role. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. According to the prosecution case, there had been an agreement between SECL and M/s Dhruv Guard Pvt. Ltd.. One condition of the agreement was that in case of deployment of 90% of Ex-service man in security services for the SECL, M/s Dhruv Guard Pvt. Ltd. shall have entitlement to receive additional allowances for the same. It is alleged that the deployment made by the M/s Dhruv Guard did not have 90% and above Ex-service man, despite that in connivance with the officials of SECL, the bills that were raised by the Dhruv Guards claiming additional allowances were passed by the officers in charge of the same and the payment was made.
6. After considering that the similarly placed co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as well as by the Court below and the investigation in this case is now complete, hence, for these reasons, I feel inclined to allow this application.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions : (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;
-3- (ii) that 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 8.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Monika