Rajesh Singh vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the CBI Assisted by Mr. B. M. Tripathy,

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of HPCL.

Petitioner has been made accused in connection with R. C. 3(A)/2017(R).

The prosecution story in brief is that a written complaint was given to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi stating therein that the

petitioner and Avijit Chakraborty working as a Senior Accounts Officer and Chief Administrative Superintendent respectively in HPCL’s Ranchi

Retail Regional Office (RO) were suspended w.e.f. 1/ 2nd December, 2016 for making repeated payments to some particular vendors through ERP

System without supporting documents/actual vouchers being retained/traceable at the location for verification. It has been alleged that from the

preliminary report it was observed that vouchers were created from ERP ID of Avijit Chakraborty and approved from the ID of the petitioner. There

was sharing of ERP password by the Finance Clerk with the Finance Officer which has been confirmed by both. It has further been stated that

HPCL’s internal audit team from East Zone had reported in their draft audit report of Ranchi RO that a large number of PX vouchers for similar

jobs were made by RO to eight vendors. It has been alleged that payments were made to some of the vouchers on 21st /23rd and 25th November,

2016 and the Finance Clerk Sri Avijit Chakraborty was on leave from 18th November, 2016 itself. It has further been alleged that the petitioner

confirmed to have taken the password of the Clerk and used it to generate the payment. The petitioner could not provide the supporting backup papers

for the payments and merely stated that he made payment only on the basis of supporting bills and vouchers. When a team from HPCL’s East

Zone, Ranchi RO and Vigilance searched the bills of the eight vendors which were paid by the Ranchi RO during the period April, 2012 to November,

2016 only fifty invoices/bills worth Rs. 6.10 lakhs could be traced out of the approximate payment of Rs. 5.58 crores.

On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint R.C. Case No. 3(A)/2017 (R) was instituted against the petitioner and others under Sections 120(B)

read with Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Clause â€" VII of the procurement manual as well as the process

prescribed to generate PX vouchers that PX vouchers cannot be created as several joint approval and signatures are to be obtained and entered into

the software system for making final payment. It has been stated that no payment has been made on behalf of HPCL in respect of fictitious PX

vouchers and in fact there are legal dues lying with HPCL which have to be distributed to the accused persons. It has been submitted that the

petitioner has not created any fictitious bills nor it has been proved that the petitioner has raised any benefits. Learned counsel further submits that

several accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail and that the petitioner is in custody since 12.04.2019.

In support of his prayer for bail, learned counsel has referred to the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal No.

1831 of 2019.

Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of HPCL has stated that the petitioner had made fraudulent payment out of the funds

of HPCL amounting to Rs. 5.97 crores without there being any bills/vouchers raised by the co-accused and without there being any actual/real work

or supply of articles executed/given by the accused.

It has been stated that the petitioner had not followed the standard procedure and had fraudulently made payment of Rs. 5.97 crores. It has also been

submitted that the investigation has revealed that the petitioner had created the PX vouchers by using the user ID and password of Sri Avijit

Chakraborty.

Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has referred to the charge-sheet and has stated that in course of investigation it has come that

from 23.07.2011 to 30.11.2016 and from 16.03.2013 to 19.07.2016 there has been a cash deposit of Rs. 19,58,500/-and Rs. 4,55,000/- to different

accounts of the petitioner. It has been stated that investigation had revealed that no verbal orders have been given by any of the Officers of the HPCL

on 03.03.2002 on the fake/factitious PX vouchers and the firms in question had neither executed any work nor supplied any articles against the fake

PX vouchers.

In the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (Supra) it was held as follows:

“21. Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this

Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and

refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the

gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be

gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases

of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of “grave offence†and in such

circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the

nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence

that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a

factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in

perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since

there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the

underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for

either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case

basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.â€​

As held in the case referred to above, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case even in case of grave economic offence since there is no

such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so.

So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that several of the accused persons were stated to be the beneficiaries of the purported fraudulent

act on the part of the petitioner and some accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 7884 of 2018 along with its

analogues cases.

It appears that in course of hearing in A.B.A. No. 7884 of 2018 and its analogues cases certain directions were given by this Court and the conclusion

which has been arrived at reads as follows:

“Though vide order dated 01.05.2019, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that he will file a copy of the statement of the

accounts of the concerned firms showing transfer of the amounts as mentioned in tabular chart at internal page â€" 19 of the charge-sheet

by way of counter affidavit and prayed for four weeks’ time but even after two months, the C.B.I. has failed to file any counter affidavit

or could file the copy of the statement of the accounts of the concerned firms showing transfer of the said amount to the firms with which the

petitioners of these cases are associated as mentioned in the said tabular chart.â€​

Based on such consideration, the petitioner in the said cases were granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner in the present case appears to be in custody

since 12.04.2019.

Regard being had to the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and that the so-called beneficiaries have already been grnated anticiparty bail

by this Court, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in connection with R. C. 3(A)/2017(Rs) ubject to the

condition that the petitioner shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the

trial.