9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption Act, 1988 added later on) was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Faridabad on the basis of a complaint made by the Lalit Mittal son of D.R. Mittal. Lalit Mittal lodged a complaint to police that he is running a construction firm namely M/s Harchand Das Gupta. Sh. Pankaj Garg of Sector-15, Faridabad supplies RCM to the firm of Lalit Mittal. Sh. Pankaj Gorg got introduced Lalit Mittal to Rambir Sharma. Rambir Sharma and his son Kuldeep Sharma assured Lalit Mittal regarding enhancement of tender amount and also to provide large scale work. Lalit Mittal alongwith his known persons Rajesh and Bheem Sain went to Delight hotel, NIT, Faridabad where J.K. Bhatia @ Bunty, Pankaj Garg, Rambir Sharma and Kuldeep Sharma were already present. Lalit Mittal on their demand gave Rs. 1,11,00,000/- to Rambir Sharma. Rambir Sharma stated that he shall pay the said amount to Senior Officers. Hence, the present case was registered as Annexure P-1. 2. That during investigation Rambir Sharma (co-accused) was arrested on 22.06.2022. Rambir Sharma during interrogation suffered his disclosure statement, (Annexure R-1) that he paid Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the then Commissioner, MC, Sonepat namely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y this Court. Rather case of the petitioner is on worst footing in comparison to Lalit Mittal and as such this Court cannot pass contradictory order in case of the present petitioner. 6. In nutshell, prosecution's case is that proposal for enhancement of the tender amount was not made according to the guidelines by the Competent Authority in such type of matters. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the petition as well as the reply. Based on such analysis outcome is as follows. 8. Complainant-Lalit Mittal had alleged that he owns a construction company named M/s Harchand Das Gupta. To procure the government contracts, they came to know about one tout, Mr. Rambir Sharma. After that, the complainant intended to contact them, and the said agency would keep introducing him to government officials. Later on, in one such meeting that took place in Faridabad, Mr. Rambir Sharma had asked the complainant to bring cash, and in the said meeting, one J.K. Bhatia @ Bunty, Pankaj Garg, Rambir Sharma and his son Kuldeep Sharma, were also present. Rajesh and Bheem Sain accompanied the complainant. The said persons told the complainant that they needed to pay a sum of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-turn he had received bribe of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant through co-accused Rambir. By such enhancement, petitioner in connivance with other officials of Municipal Corporation, Sonipat, wanted to give undue benefit to Lalit Mittal in violation of guidelines/norms/policies dated 12.12.2018. In addition to that there were irregularities in the technicalities and proposal which was pointed out in technical report dated 13.02.2023. Because of the unethical conduct of the complainant, the petitioner, who was discharging official functions and holding the post of Electrical Engineer, indulged in corrupt criminal practices and enriched himself knowingly that even if the money was not paid to the contractor, he had nothing to lose. In this manner, he acted as a cheat, which is also why an offence under Section 420 IPC read with 120 B IPC had already been incorporated in the FIR. Even if one of the officials of Municipal Corporation, who had put their signatures on the file for enhancement of the contract, was honest, then the file would have stopped and their attempt to cheat the government would have hold at the initial stage itself, but unfortunately it did not happen, which ough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305]. 15. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds, [34]. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. [35]. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
