Sh. K. Hlosa v. State of Mizoram

ORDER

28.04.2023 Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶2Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with ACB PS Case No. 1/2023 under Section 13(1)(a)

(b) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B/406/409/420 IPC. Page No.# 2/4

¶3The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has been corporating with the investigation and that there is no question of the petitioner absconding. He submits that the petitioner is currently working as an Executive Engineer, PWD under the MADC and as such, pre-arrest bail should be granted to him under Section 438 CrPC, as his role in the construction of the steps and Urinal Shed by Smt. N. Ngokia and Sh. S. Vabeily respectively, were only to the extent of giving a completion certificate, while he was an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner's counsel submits that the work done by the above two Contractors, was as per the instruction of the then member of the MADC, namely, Sh. K.L. Bana(L).

¶4The petitioner's counsel has also relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2005) 7 SCC 226 and the case of Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676, in support of his submission that as one of the co-accused namely, Smt. Julie B.Ngokei@ B.Ngokia had been released on anticipatory bail, vide Order dated

13.04.2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6/2023 by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Aizawl, the petitioner herein should also be granted anticipatory bail. He submits that Smt. Julie B. Ngokei@B.Ngokia was a Contractor for the construction of steps.

¶5Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the Case Diary and the photographs of the work done by the Contractor for construction of a Urinal, which was under the supervision of the petitioner, was not in consonance with the work order for construction of the Urinal. She submits that while the Urinal should have been made by way of an RCC construction, the same was made only with wood planks, with no roof. She accordingly submits that the application should be rejected.

¶6I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶7At the outset, it has to be noted that the facts of the case pertaining to the co-Page No.# 3/4 accused, who had been granted anticipatory bail i.e. Smt. Julie B. Ngokei, is different from the case in hand. Smt. Julie B. Ngokei@B. Ngokia was a Contractor with regard to construction of concrete steps, while the petitioner herein was the Executive Engineer who was to supervise the construction of the steps and the Urinal.

¶8Smt. Julie B. Ngokei @B. Ngokia had been granted anticipatory bail only with respect to the construction of the steps. On the other hand, the petitioner herein was to supervise the construction of the steps and the Urinal. On a perusal of the photographs of the Urinal which is submitted, it is clear that the same is not an RCC structure, as the same is made with some wooden planks. The Urinal does not have any roof. As it is settled law that a Judgment/Order is only a decision for what it decides, the facts of the present case being different from the facts in Smt. Julie B. Ngokei's case, the case of Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶9The photographs of the Urinal clearly show that the cost of the same could not have been anywhere close to the estimated amount Rs. 1.5 lakh. The cost of the wooden planks etc. in the photograph show that the approximate cost of the urinal could not be more than Rs. 10,000/-. The same being a wooden structure instead of an RCC construction, as per the detailed plan and estimate, it clearly shows that there are materials against the petitioner. The petitioner had given a completion certificate even though the Contractor had constructed the Urinal in violation of the detailed plan and estimate, besides giving the entire estimated amount to the Contractor. As the investigation is not complete and there are materials against the petitioner, the Judgment of the Apex Court in Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another(Supra) would not be applicable to the facts of this case. Further, as the grant of Anticipatory Bail is a discretionary power and keeping in view the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to allow the anticipatory bail application.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Page No.# 4/4

¶11The interim order passed earlier stands also vacated and the interim anticipatory bail stands cancelled. JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030001762023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3/2023 Sh. K. Hlosa Siaha College Vaih-II, Siaha District, Mizoram VERSUS State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Victor L Ralte Advocate for the Respondent : Mrs. Linda L Fambawl, Addl. PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA