Allowed

Rajendra Kumar Poddar v. the Union of India through CBI

Jharkhand HC21 Sept 2020A.B.A./1978/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar Poddar, who feared arrest in a corruption case regarding coal quota allotments. The court accepted that submissions regarding lack of discrepancies in the firm’s stock fortified the plea.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks before Special Judge CBI, Dhanbad, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Rajendra Kumar Poddar Vs the Union of India through CBI — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1978 of 2020

¶2

Rajendra Kumar Poddar … … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I. … … Opposite Party -------

¶3

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

¶4

------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate -------

¶5

04/21.09.2020 Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. Defects, if any, pointed out by the office are ignored.

¶6

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

¶7

An information was received from reliable sources that Sri V.P. Singh, G.M. (Sales), BCCL, Dhanbad and Sri Udayan Bhattacharya 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 wrongful loss to BCCL to the tune of approximately

¶8

-2-

¶9

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 nonexistent 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 Sri Udayan Bhattacharya by abuse of their official position.

¶10

It has been stated by Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s Kali Mata Soft Coke Manufacturing Industries, Tetulmari. While referring to the memorandum of search learned counsel submits that there was no discrepancy found in the stock of raw coal, soft coal and unusable coal. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel further submits that from the charge-sheet it is evident that the total coal supplied under linkage quota was 4483 MT while as per the e-auction the petitioner's firm had purchased 8500 MT. It has further been stated that the firm of the petitioner was found to be in a workable condition as per the memorandum of search and a vague allegation has been levelled regarding the particulars of the purchasers being fabricated. Learned counsel has also referred to a similar case in R.C. 2(A)/2010-AHD-R in which final report was submitted in favour of the accused in the said case. Learned counsel therefore submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the allegations levelled against the petitioner does not seem to have been supported with evidence collected in course of the investigation.

¶11

Mrs. Nitu 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.

¶12

-3-

¶13

One of the allegations levelled in the First Information Report is that some of the private companies which had been granted linkage quota of coal were non-existent and even if some of them are in existence but they do not have any manufacturing activity.

¶14

The memorandum of search has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it appears that for manufacturing of Soft Coke necessary infrastructure was available in the factory premises. It has also been stated therein that staffs were working and rooms were also constructed for the use of office purposes as well as staff rest room etc. The factory was concluded to be in a running condition and smokes were ebbing out from the Chimney. In fact the weighbridge was also found to be fully computerized. The memorandum of search, therefore, demolishes the allegation with regard to non-existence of the firm or no manufacturing process being carried out in the firm. The case of the petitioner further seems fortified by the fact that as per the charge-sheet the total coal supplied under the linkage quota was 4483 MT. In the information received under the R.T.I. Act 2005 for the period of January, 2009 to February, 2010 the firm of the petitioner under e-auction had booked 8500 MT of coal. The said fact substantially reduces the allegation regarding the subsidized coal being taken under the linkage quota and thereafter selling the same in the open market at a higher price.

¶15

On consideration of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is accordingly 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 Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with

¶16

-4-

¶17

R.C. No. 04(A)/2010-D, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

This application stands allowed.

¶19

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶20

Alok/-

Rajendra Kumar Poddar v. the Union of India through CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Poddar v. the 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

Udyan Bhattacharya Paul Alias Udayan Bhattacharya Vs Union of India through CBI

Ramprasad Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mukhtar Alias Mukhtar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand