Allowed

Udyan Bhattacharya Paul Alias Udayan Bhattacharya v. Union of India through CBI

Jharkhand HC21 Sept 2020A.B.A./1800/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application allowed. Court directed petitioner to surrender before了下级 court within four weeks and release on bail with bond and sureties upon surrender, noting CBI recommended departmental proceedings and found no criminal culpability.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before next lower court within 4 weeks and be released on bail upon furnishing bond and sureties.

Udyan Bhattacharya Paul Alias Udayan Bhattacharya Vs Union of… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1800 of 2020

¶2

Udyan Bhattacharya Paul @ Udayan Bhattacharya

¶3

… … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India through C.B.I. … … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through- Video Conferencing

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate -------

¶8

04/21.09.2020 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I.

¶9

The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010(D).

¶10

An information was received from reliable sources that Sri V.P. Singh, G.M. (Sales), BCCL, Dhanbad and the petitioner the then G.M. (Sales), BCCL, Dhanbad entered into a conspiracy during the year 2008-09 with unknown officers of Coal India Ltd., BCCL, CMPDIL, Ranchi and the Proprietors/Directors of various firms enumerated therein and in furtherance thereof allotted linkage quota of coal from BCCL without verifying the required record under the Fuel Supply Agreement executed in compliance of the New Coal Distribution Policy. It has been alleged that the rate of coal is subsidized at Rs. 1200/- per MT whereas the coal sold through e-auction by CIL/BCCL is Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 2400/approximately per MT. There is a price difference of Rs. 800/to Rs. 1200/- per MT in comparison to e-auction price of coal. The said private companies lifted about 2 Lakh MT of coal during the aforesaid period and instead of compulsorily utilizing the same in the respective plant had sold the same in the open market at a higher price. If the said coal was sold in the open market by BCCL through e-auction then it would have earned @ Rs. 800-1200 per MT which resulted in a

¶11

-2-

¶12

wrongful loss to BCCL to the tune of approximately Rs. 16 to Rs. 24 crores and corresponding wrongful gain to the private companies and/or the public servants. It has also been alleged that the aforesaid private companies are non-existent though some of the them are existing at the given premises but they do not have any manufacturing activity and they have got their project approved in connivance with the officers of CMPDIL and managed to get their case for execution for Fuel Supply Agreement with BCCL recommended by Sri V.P. Singh and the petitioner by abuse of their official position.

¶13

It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had acted as per the rules and dictum of the superior authorities. Learned senior counsel further submits that a committee was constituted comprising of the senior executives who were to examine the cases of the applicants and were to place the same after due verification before the CMD, CIL and on verification recommendation was put up before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and therefore the petitioner cannot be held responsible as it was not an individual act. It has been submitted that the petitioner being the General Manager (S&M), BCCL, Dhanbad at the relevant point of time cannot be presumed to commit an offence in absence of any evidence. Mr. Mazumdar, furthers his argument by stating that the Investigating Agency did not find any criminality with the action of the petitioner but even then the learned court below had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶14

Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that several of the companies allotted linkage of coal were found to be non-existent and some were found not to have any manufacturing activity. He submits that the petitioner was responsible for entering into

¶15

-3-

¶16

agreements with such dubious companies and therefore the criminal culpability of the petitioner is apparent.

¶17

In course of investigation the C.B.I. did not find the criminal culpability of the petitioner. The cognizance order does not speak of any material of substance while disagreeing with the findings regarding non-prosecution of the petitioner. Merely because there was a loss to BCCL to the tune of Rs. 16 crores to Rs. 24 crores and the petitioner being the G.M. (S&M), BCCL at the relevant point of time he is being sought to be prosecuted. There might have been some dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in not ensuring compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement vis-a-vis his failure to check diversion of coal. The C.B.I. did not file any charge-sheet against the present petitioner but recommended to start a departmental proceeding. There is nothing on record to indicate any complicity or conspiracy on the part of the petitioner with the other accused persons in facilitating wrongful gain to them.

¶18

Such circumstances entitles the petitioner to the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petitioner accordingly is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-VIII-cumSpecial Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010(D), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

This application stands allowed.

¶20

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶21

Alok/-

Udyan Bhattacharya Paul Alias Udayan Bhattacharya v. Union of India through CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udyan Bhattacharya Paul Alias Udayan Bhattacharya v. Union of India through CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundan Kumar Mandal Alias Kundan Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rupesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lolin Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Kumar Poddar Vs the Union of India through CBI

Ramprasad Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mukhtar Alias Mukhtar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand