AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Vigilance.
Since, both the bail applications arising out of the same case i.e. Vigilance Case No. 15 of 2009 corresponding to Special Case No. 19 of 2009, now pending in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilanee-Ranchi, hence both the cases are heard together and being disposed of with common order.
Petitioners are accused in a case registered u/s 420, 120B of the I.P.C., and u/s 7, 9, 10, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The allegation against the petitioner No. 1, Dr. Amreshwar Prasad is that he being the Chairman of the selection committee for appointment of ''Ayush'' Medical Officer and another accused Dr. Joytish Chandra Singh demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from the informant, Dr. Harsh Deo Gupta, one of the candidate, after his interview having Role No. 146, After negotiation and request the amount was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000/- and on 21.7.2008 at about 8 a.m. Informant received call on his mobile from Dr. Jyotish to contact him at 2 p.m. with the entire money at the place mentioned by him, failing which the selection will not be done. Other candidates namely Md. Rizwan having role No. 106 also made the complaint that he was also interviewed for ''Yunani'' Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi under the chairmanship of the petitioner No. 1, Dr. Amreshwar Prasad and from him also Rs. 3 lakhs was demanded as illegal gratification through petitioner No. 2, Kishore Prasad and on 18.5.2008 the said Kishore Prasad gave a call from his mobile No. 9431996413 and after negotiation the amount was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. During inquiry it was also found that appointments were made by accepting illegal gratification from other candidates namely Mukesh Chandra Kishore, role No. 179, selected for Homeopathic Medical Officer and the said Mukesh transferred Rs. 45,000/- on 21.4.2008 and Rs. 49,999/- on 12.5.2008 in the Sb A/C No. 2009938095 of Dr. Jyotish Ch. Singh at S.B.I. Main Branch, Kuthcery Road, Ranchi. In course of inquiry the said matter was verified by the Vigilance Department and found that in fact the said amount has been transferred and it transpired that in the said account of Dr. Jyotish Ch. Singh money has been transferred in the month of Many -June-July from different places like Chandrapura, Jamalpur, Begusarai and Ranchi and It appears after investigation, charge sheet has now been submitted against both petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner no,1, Dr. Amreshwar Prasad has submitted that Vigilance during investigation has collected a compact disc and by combining all the compact disc a D.V.D was created and it will appear from the conversation, as has been recorded in para 9 to 22 of the case diary that petitioner No. 1 has never demanded any Illegal gratification either front the informant, Dr. Harsh Deo Gupta or from Dr. Md. Rizwan and since, petitioner No. 1 is only chairman of the selection committee has has nothing to do with other accused, Dr. Kautish Ch. Singh, against whom there is allegation of demand of illegal gratification and also acceptance of money in his account from other candidates. Further, petitioner No. 1 is languishing in jail custody for the last 4 months, hence he may be enlarge on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2, Kishori Prasad has submitted that petitioner No. 2 is not & government servant nor he has anything to do with the appointment of ''Ayush'' Docotrs. The only allegation against him is that he is said to be the driver of petitioner No. 1, Amreshwar Prasad, chairman of the selection committee and allegation has been made only by complaint, Md. Rizwan that after his interview, petitioner No. 2, Kishori Prasad approached him and said that if he deposit Rs. 3 lakhs, he will be selected and subsequently, petitioner No. 2 called him from his mobile and the money was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. Learned Counsel for petitioner No. 2 has submitted that there is no evidence that the said mobile belongs to petitioner no.2.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Vigilance has opposed the prayer and submitted that from the evidences collected during investigation and specially from para 9 to 22, it will appear that petitioner, Dr. Amreshwar Prasad and accused. Jyotish Ch. Singh were hand; in glove in demanding and accepting illegal gratification and petitioner, Kishori Prasad was working for petitioner, Dr. Amreshwar Prasad and he has demanded money from the candidates and even gave them call on their mobile, as such, the do not deserve bail and their prayer is fit to be rejected.
After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find from para 9 of the case diary, which has got record of the talk between petitioner, Dr. Amreshwar Prasad and informant, Dr. Harshdeo Gupta about the informant''s appointment and to settle the matter by talking with one Mr. Dutta ji, and others. It appears that then he talked to said B. K. Duta on 11.7.2008 and the said Dutta ji asked him to come with the money on the next day . Subsequently, he talked to Jyotish Ch. Singh, who asked him to come with whatever money he has got, whereupon he told that he has got only Rs. 50,000/- to which Jyotish Ch. Singh told him to come with Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, it is clear that at the instance of petitioner, Amreshwar Prasad, informant was talking to Dr. Jyotish Ch. Singh and Mr. Dutta and it also came during investigation that even appointed candidates have transferred money in favour of Jyotish Ch. Singh, which shows that petitioner, Dr. Amreshwar Prasad and that Dutta ji were hand in glove in demanding and accepting the illegal gratification for appointment of ''Ayush'' medical officer in the State on contract basis. Similarly, it also appears that petitioner, Kishori Prasad was also involved with them in demanding and celling for the illegal gratification.
In that view of the matter, I am no inclined to grant bail to both the petitioners, named above.
However, since, both the petitioners are in jail custody for the last 4 months and also since, as per the submission made by learned Counsel for the vigilance that investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against petitioners in the trial court, hence the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within 4 months. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer.