Rajeev Kumar Poddar and Another v. Central Bureau of Invetigation Anti Corruption Branch Lko

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2960 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Poddar And Another Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Invetigation Anti Corruption Branch Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Hemant Gupta,Naveen Kumar Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Akhil Pratap Singh holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-C.B.I and perused the record.

¶2By means of the instant application the applicants are seeking bail in Criminal Case No. 09 of 2012 (Now Sessions Case No.491 of 2023) arising out of F.I.R. No. RC00620011A0007 under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., 1860 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. SPE/ACB, Lucknow.

¶3The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report (F.I.R.) lodged by the C.B.I on 13th of April 2011 against a named accused person and unknown officers/ officials of District Industries Centre, District Chandauli, and unknown officers/officials of Northern Coalfields Ltd., alleging certain illegalities committed in supplying coal by the officers/officials of Northern Coalfields Ltd. with active connivance of the officers/ officials of the District Industries Centre.

¶4The C.B.I. has submitted a charge-sheet on 31.05.2012, named as many as 15 persons. Regarding the applicants, the allegation is that they are the owners of M/s Poonam Coal Supplier and Maa Mathurasini Traders. The investigation has revealed that during year 2010-11, sale of at least 173.40 Metric Tonn undersized coal and 120.98 MT SSF & 76.42 MT undersized coal was shown to have been made to applicants' firms M/s Poonam Coal Suppliers & Maa Mathurasini Traders respectively by M/s Shree Ram Fuels Pvt. Ltd through various truck loads and it was proved to be false on the basis of the vehicles determined as other than trucks. The applicants have been charged as being involved in criminal conspiracy of illegal diversion of coal by showing fake purchase of undersized coal.

¶5The charge-sheet mentions that the applicants were not arrested during investigation.

¶6The learned counsel for the applicants submits that several other co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail, one of the co-accused person Ramji Singh has been granted bail by means of order dated 28.03.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No-676 of 2023.

¶7Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegation levelled against the applicants are that they are the owner of a company to which sale of coal has been alleged to have been made, which supplies have been found to be fake on the basis of vehicles nos through which the coal was allegedly supplied and there is no allegation of any act of commission by the applicants; that the applicants have cooperated with the investigation and he was not arrested during investigation, coupled with the fact that some other accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail I am of the view that the applicants are also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶8In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶9In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicants (i) Rajiv Kumar Poddar and Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, be released forthwith in Criminal Case No. 09 of 2012 (Now Sessions Case No.491 of 2023), F.I.R. No. RC00620011A0007 under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, P.S. SPE/ACB, Lucknow, on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). That the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;

(ii). That the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). That the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. Order Date :- 20.12.2023 Pradeep/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench