Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.914/2011
th
% Reserved on: 27 July, 2011
nd
Decided on: 2 August , 2011
A Krishna Reddy ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Adv.
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan with
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Not Necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. By this application, the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case RC-
DAI-2010-A-0044 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections
420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the PC Act’).
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 1 of 6
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that none of the allegations
made against the Petitioner disclose the essential ingredients of the offences
punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 476 of IPC. The allegations are
vague and bald. There is no material annexed to the charge sheet to establish
any of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. No allegation has been
made against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act. The Petitioner has joined the investigation and appeared before
th th th
the Investigating Officer on 7 February, 2011, 11 February, 2011 and 12
February, 2011 and was interrogated till late hours of night. A search was
th st
also conducted on 11 February, 2011 and 31 February, 2011 and possession
of all the documents from the office was taken. Proclamation made under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is based on the allegation of non-appearance of the
th
Petitioner before the Investigating Officer on14th March, 2011 and 20 April,
2011 when he was not even an accused. The name of the Petitioner for the
first time was shown as an accused on the date of filing of the charge sheet on
th rd
20 May, 2011 and the Petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender on 23
May, 2011. Admittedly, there is no written contract between M/s Gem
International and M/s Swiss Timing Limited (STL). Further there was no
bar imposed on STL prohibiting it to enter into sub-contract with another
company/firm.
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 2 of 6
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent contends that conduct of the
Petitioner has been such that he has been avoiding investigation. Though the
Petitioner claimed that he could not appear before the investigating agency on
st
account of his wife’s illness, however, when on 31 March, 2011, the CBI
searched the residential as well as office premises of the Petitioner, he was not
available and was purportedly in Madhya Pradesh on work. The contention
that the Petitioner was never informed that he is an accused and now for the
first time he has been informed that he is an accused and no non-bailable
warrant could have been taken without intimating the Petitioner that he is an
accused is wholly incorrect. The Petitioner had filed a petition for
anticipatory bail before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was
dismissed. The stand of the CBI in respect of the Petitioner was clearly spelt
out in the Court and was recorded in the said order. The Petitioner is already
influencing the witnesses as one of the PWs was found assisting the learned
counsel for the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court. The contention that
the Petitioner is a sub-contractor of a sub-contractor and was nowhere in
picture when the alleged conspiracy was hedged between OC, STL, Anil
Kumar Madan and P.D. Arya, is wholly incorrect. In a case of conspiracy,
parties may even enter at a later stage, nonetheless they are liable for the
conspiracy. The entire boggy that the Petitioner’s concern M/s AKR
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 3 of 6
Construction Ltd. did the work of laying down underground cabling is
incorrect in view of the statement of one Raj Kumar Rawat, who stated that he
had done the work of laying cables in Delhi. According to the Petitioner,
certain cash payments were made to Anjaiah and Balaiah for allegedly
arranging the labour. However, the Petitioner has not been able to produce
these two persons. No muster rolls were prepared in this regard. The
Petitioner only raised fictitious bills in the name of AKR Constructions. In
fact, the Petitioner’s concern was a front face to divert the funds and it had
done no work. It is also contended by learned Special Prosecutor that during
investigation it has been revealed that M/s Gem International, whose partners
are Anil Kumar Madan and P.D. Arya, was acting as some sort of
agents/associates of M/s STL in the matter of dealing with the Organizing
Committee and huge amounts were transferred by M/s STL to M/s Gem
International on the pretext of its carrying out some sub-contractual work
relating to provision of TSR system for CWG 2010. M/s Gen International
received at least ` 23 crores from STL on the basis of generic, vague, lump
sum and incorrect invoices, which do not contain rates, quantities or details of
works carried out by them. It has further been revealed that the invoices are
false and are not based on genuine commercial transactions. The money was
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 4 of 6
further siphoned off to Petitioner’s company from M/s Gem International on
the basis of fake invoices.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parti es. A perusal of the
statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that though the Petitioner
alleges that he entered into a contract for laying down underground cables
with M/s Gem International, however, he could neither produce the persons,
who did the work nor the muster rolls but only invoices and bills raised were
shown. This claim of the Petitioner appears to be false in view of the
statement of PW17, Raj Kumar Rawat, who has stated that he did the cabling
work in Delhi for TSR. The Petitioner may not be part of the conspiracy
initially, however, if he joins the chain subsequently, he would still be a part
of the conspiracy. As per the statement of PW 28 and PW31, it is clear that
no work was done by AKR for laying the cables. From the investigation
conducted so far the Petitioner’s company appears to be a front face for
siphoning the money. However, the Petitioner has not been able to produce
the persons from whom he had arranged the labour nor any other documents
except certain invoices raised in the name of Anjaiah and Balaiah. The
interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary to explain the money trail as to
where the money had gone after being collected in the name of laying
underground cables.
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 5 of 6
5. In view of these facts, I do not find any merit in the application. The
application is accordingly dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 02, 2011
vkm
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 6 of 6
+ Bail Application No.914/2011
th
% Reserved on: 27 July, 2011
nd
Decided on: 2 August , 2011
A Krishna Reddy ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Adv.
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan with
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Not Necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. By this application, the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case RC-
DAI-2010-A-0044 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections
420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the PC Act’).
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 1 of 6
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that none of the allegations
made against the Petitioner disclose the essential ingredients of the offences
punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 476 of IPC. The allegations are
vague and bald. There is no material annexed to the charge sheet to establish
any of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. No allegation has been
made against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act. The Petitioner has joined the investigation and appeared before
th th th
the Investigating Officer on 7 February, 2011, 11 February, 2011 and 12
February, 2011 and was interrogated till late hours of night. A search was
th st
also conducted on 11 February, 2011 and 31 February, 2011 and possession
of all the documents from the office was taken. Proclamation made under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is based on the allegation of non-appearance of the
th
Petitioner before the Investigating Officer on14th March, 2011 and 20 April,
2011 when he was not even an accused. The name of the Petitioner for the
first time was shown as an accused on the date of filing of the charge sheet on
th rd
20 May, 2011 and the Petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender on 23
May, 2011. Admittedly, there is no written contract between M/s Gem
International and M/s Swiss Timing Limited (STL). Further there was no
bar imposed on STL prohibiting it to enter into sub-contract with another
company/firm.
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 2 of 6
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent contends that conduct of the
Petitioner has been such that he has been avoiding investigation. Though the
Petitioner claimed that he could not appear before the investigating agency on
st
account of his wife’s illness, however, when on 31 March, 2011, the CBI
searched the residential as well as office premises of the Petitioner, he was not
available and was purportedly in Madhya Pradesh on work. The contention
that the Petitioner was never informed that he is an accused and now for the
first time he has been informed that he is an accused and no non-bailable
warrant could have been taken without intimating the Petitioner that he is an
accused is wholly incorrect. The Petitioner had filed a petition for
anticipatory bail before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was
dismissed. The stand of the CBI in respect of the Petitioner was clearly spelt
out in the Court and was recorded in the said order. The Petitioner is already
influencing the witnesses as one of the PWs was found assisting the learned
counsel for the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court. The contention that
the Petitioner is a sub-contractor of a sub-contractor and was nowhere in
picture when the alleged conspiracy was hedged between OC, STL, Anil
Kumar Madan and P.D. Arya, is wholly incorrect. In a case of conspiracy,
parties may even enter at a later stage, nonetheless they are liable for the
conspiracy. The entire boggy that the Petitioner’s concern M/s AKR
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 3 of 6
Construction Ltd. did the work of laying down underground cabling is
incorrect in view of the statement of one Raj Kumar Rawat, who stated that he
had done the work of laying cables in Delhi. According to the Petitioner,
certain cash payments were made to Anjaiah and Balaiah for allegedly
arranging the labour. However, the Petitioner has not been able to produce
these two persons. No muster rolls were prepared in this regard. The
Petitioner only raised fictitious bills in the name of AKR Constructions. In
fact, the Petitioner’s concern was a front face to divert the funds and it had
done no work. It is also contended by learned Special Prosecutor that during
investigation it has been revealed that M/s Gem International, whose partners
are Anil Kumar Madan and P.D. Arya, was acting as some sort of
agents/associates of M/s STL in the matter of dealing with the Organizing
Committee and huge amounts were transferred by M/s STL to M/s Gem
International on the pretext of its carrying out some sub-contractual work
relating to provision of TSR system for CWG 2010. M/s Gen International
received at least ` 23 crores from STL on the basis of generic, vague, lump
sum and incorrect invoices, which do not contain rates, quantities or details of
works carried out by them. It has further been revealed that the invoices are
false and are not based on genuine commercial transactions. The money was
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 4 of 6
further siphoned off to Petitioner’s company from M/s Gem International on
the basis of fake invoices.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parti es. A perusal of the
statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that though the Petitioner
alleges that he entered into a contract for laying down underground cables
with M/s Gem International, however, he could neither produce the persons,
who did the work nor the muster rolls but only invoices and bills raised were
shown. This claim of the Petitioner appears to be false in view of the
statement of PW17, Raj Kumar Rawat, who has stated that he did the cabling
work in Delhi for TSR. The Petitioner may not be part of the conspiracy
initially, however, if he joins the chain subsequently, he would still be a part
of the conspiracy. As per the statement of PW 28 and PW31, it is clear that
no work was done by AKR for laying the cables. From the investigation
conducted so far the Petitioner’s company appears to be a front face for
siphoning the money. However, the Petitioner has not been able to produce
the persons from whom he had arranged the labour nor any other documents
except certain invoices raised in the name of Anjaiah and Balaiah. The
interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary to explain the money trail as to
where the money had gone after being collected in the name of laying
underground cables.
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 5 of 6
5. In view of these facts, I do not find any merit in the application. The
application is accordingly dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 02, 2011
vkm
Bail Appl. No.914/2011 Page 6 of 6