R P Pathak v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6619 of 2017 R.P. Pathak, S/o. Shri Durga Prasad Pathak, Aged About 67 Years, R/o. House No. 659, Near Kargil Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Economic Offence Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :
Mr. N.N.Roy, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr. Ashish Shukla, Dy. A.G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10.01.2018 1.
This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.09/2015 registered at Police Station- State Economic Offence Bureau, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 109, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.
As per the prosecution case, the applicant who has to check the quality of rice procured in different collection centers after milling in connivance with the higher officials of the State Civil Supplies (NAN) admitted the sub-standards rice and salt in lieu of the gratification received. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the applicant alongwith other co-accused has given the false certificate of quality and vice-versa also refused to accept the quality rice on the ground that they are sub-standard and in lieu
thereof used to recover amounts from the millers who would in turn otherwise would have landed at financial burden for conveyance and stocking. Consequently, the recoveries were made from the millars and half of the amount were sent to the higher officials in the head office by taking a share into it. Thereby, the offence has been committed.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was appointed on a contract as Assistant Manager Quality Control at Raipur to verify the quality of rice in different districts and whenever after visit he found the quality of the rice is not upto the given standard, he had issued notice to the Technical Assistant who are primarily responsible for accepting the rice and issued quality certificate. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to prosecute the applicant and the applicant has been a victim of the media trial. He further submits that in case of D.S.Kushwaha, who was also appointed like nature, the facts were not properly placed before the Court, as such, his bail application was dismissed.
4.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the bail application of the similarly placed co-accused D.S.Kushwaha has been rejected in MCRC No.7098 of 2017 on 29.11.2017.
5.
The bail application of the similarly placed co-accused D.S.Kushwaha has been dismissed on 29.11.2017 in MCRC No.7098 of 2017. Perused the statement of Azad Toppo, which shows that the appellant used to receive the amount for the quality control and likewise Devi Prasad Chandrakar also stated that the applicant used to receive the amount to verify the quality control and from the house of the applicant, Rs.7,75,000/- and from locker
Rs.4,12,000/- has been seized. Considering the same and also taking into the fact that the bail application of the other similarly placed co-accused has been dismissed, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
6.
Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok