Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Sudhir Kumar Bhole and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 3094, 3098, 3102, 3185 and 3209 of 2015
Decided On : 16-07-2015
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 11, 13 – Appeal against conviction – Acquittal - learned counsel would further submit that applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused Arvind Dhruv which is not admissible as he is also a co-accused in this case. Interception of telephonic conversation has not been permitted by the competent authority and there is no complaint of rice millers against him. Applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole is in custody since 20-3-2015; charge sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and therefore, he be released on bail – Held, Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed hereinabove and taking into account, the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the applicants herein, the manner in which the present applicants are alleged to have conspired with other co-accused persons and thereby the sub-standard rice were accepted by them contrary to the standard specification prescribed by competent authority, which is apparent from the quality test report conducted and submitted by the Food Corporation of India and the technical expert of the Corporation and the manner in which co-accused persons have conspired with each other and obtained huge illegal gratification from the rice millers which is limpid from the statement of the rice millers recorded by the prosecution and available in the case and further taking note of the fact in total Rs. 3,43,96,965.00 (Rupees Three Crore Forty Three Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five) was recovered from the possession of accused persons from their office and their houses on raid conducted by Anti Corruption Bureau on 12-2-2015. Not only this huge unexplained money, valuable articles and the disproportionate wealth to their known source of income have been recovered from them, for which the proceeding under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is said to have been registered against the accused persons including the present applicants herein. Further taking into account the severity of the punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences and keeping in mind, the binding observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforesaid cases (supra), that corruption is a enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further taking in view that corruption is really a human rights violation specially right to life, liberty - Application Dismissed
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since all the above applications have arisen out of the same crime number, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The accused/applicants have moved these bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 9/2015 (Special Case No. 794/2015) pending in the Court of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Raipur, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'); 109, 120B, 409 and 420 of the IPC.
M.Cr.C. No. 3094/2015
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant namely Sudhir Kumar Bhole while working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation as on 4-5-2012 entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers and in lieu thereof, obtained illegal gratification per quintal from rice millers and thereafter, sent Rs.4/- per quintal to other co-accused, Head Quarter at Raipur, and thereby committed the offences.
M.Cr.C. No. 3098/2015
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Satish Kumar Kaiwarth while working as Junior Technical Assistant in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation as on 10-1-2014 entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers and obtained illegal gratification and thereby committed the offences.
M.Cr.C. No. 3209/2015
5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Motilal Sahu while posted as District Manager in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation at Gariyaband accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers and obtained illegal gratification from rice millers and sent a part of it to the Head Quarter at Raipur to other co-accused persons, and thereby committed the offences.
M.Cr.C. No. 3102/2015
6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Dilip Kumar Sharma while working as Branch Manager in the State Ware Housing Corporation, Balod accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers during collection of rice in the Nagarik Aapurti Nigam, Balod, and sent a part of it to the Head Quarter at Raipur to other co-accused persons, and thereby committed the offences.
M.Cr.C. No. 3185/2015
7. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Kaushal Kishore Yadu while posted as District Manager in the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Bilaspur with effect from 22-9-2012 accepted sub-standard rice and obtained illegal gratification from rice millers and sent a part of it i.e. Rs.4/- per quintal to the Head Quarter at Raipur to other co-accused, and thereby committed the offences.
8. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for applicants Sudhir Kumar Bhole & Satish Kumar Kaiwarth, would submit that the present applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. An amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- has been recovered from the Office of applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole for which offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has been separately registered against him in which he is answerable and possession of that amount has properly been explained by him before the competent authority by submitting explanation. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel would further submit that applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused Arvind Dhruv which is not admissible as he is also a co-accused in this case. Interception of telephonic conversation has not been permitted by the competent authority and there is no complaint of rice millers against him. Applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole is in custody since 20-3-2015; charge sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
