Amarjit Gupta vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

Crl.M.No.32869 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.No.M-16346 of 2012

The present petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.2, dated 2.5.2012, Annexure P1, under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station V.B. FS-I, Mohali, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, (Mohali), vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Briefly stated, allegations are that House fed Punjab, i.e., Housing Federation had invited tenders from the contractors for construction of 632 flats in two pockets in Sector 79, Mohali. In pursuance of the said tender notice published in the newspaper, the contractors submitted tenders and same were opened on 7.7.2010. The contract was awarded to a joint venture of M/s Manohar Lal Gupta and Company Pvt.Ltd., M/s E.C.Construction Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Vantage Infratech Pvt. Ltd. in two groups for Rs. .34,18,17665/- and Rs. .38,58,72,164/- . However, lateron, it was revealed that the tender forms were not filled as per rules and instructions as the various rates were mentioned in figures only and not in words, whereas the rates were to be mentioned in figures as well as in words to avoid any tempering with the same at any later stage in the process of accepting the tenders. The entire process of opening the tenders was videographed and C.D. was prepared. However, later on, it was found that rates of some of the items have been enhanced in the tender form of the said concern after opening of the tender on 7.7.2010 and hence, tenders were accepted as per the increase rates and hence, loss to the tune of Rs. .8,61,22007/- has been caused to the department and corresponding gain to the said concern. Present petitioner-accused was posted as Superintending Engineer of the House fed Punjab at the relevant time. He was one of the members of the committee, who were entrusted the job of opening and accepting the tenders. The other members of the Committee were Tejinder Singh Virdi, then Managing Director, House fed Punjab, and Nishi Rana, Additional Registrar (D) Cooperative Societies Punjab. Further allegations are that though the tender form was signed by the other two members of the Committee and, however, petitioner-accused did not sign the said tender form at that time and rather he had taken the same with him and he later on signed the same. The DVD, which was prepared at the time of opening of the tender was seen by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, and he has mentioned about the discrepancies in the rates in his order.

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that even as per order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, who had passed the same after seeing the DVD though rates of some items were found to be increased and, however, rates of one of the items at item No.20 was found to be decreased and that if the amount so arrived at these rates of all the items be taken into consideration, there would not be much difference in the total amount of tender. It is further submitted that one of the items, i.e., item No.40, in which rate has been changed has also been signed by all the committee members in one of the groups of the tender. It is further submitted that however, there is no tempering in the second group. Hence, it is contended that petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for any alleged tempering. It is further submitted that the said tender form also remained in possession of other officials, i.e., SDOs of the department and that it is yet to be determined as to who had done the alleged tempering. It is also contended that DVD remained in possession of one of the SDOs, whose ACR was spoiled by the present petitioner-accused.

Be that as it may, petitioner-accused was one of the members of the Committee, who had accepted and opened the tenders. Merely, on the ground that no action is being taken by the police against the other members, at this stage, it cannot be said that petitioner is having no role to play in this entire process of opening and accepting the tenders after tempering. He has also been charge-sheeted by the department. Case is at the initial stage of investigation. Hence to arrive at the truth as to how incomplete tender forms were accepted and as to how the rates were changed of various items, custodial interrogation of petitioner-accused is necessary.

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Amarjit Gupta for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.