1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.1323/2010 H.C. Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 18th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.S.R. Bajwa, Sr.Adv. with Mr. V.R. Bajwa for petitioner. Mr.T.P. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the FIR, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.’). The petitioner was not arrested during the course of investigation, but at the time of filing of the charge-sheet his bail application was rejected, accordingly, the petitioner was arrested. It is stated that the matter pertains to allotment of job for installation of 450 TPA (Tons per annum) Bromine Plant at Khara Ghoda, Gujarat. M/s. Hindustan Salt Ltd. (a public 2 sector undertaking) called for tender. The petitioner was nowhere involved in finalization of the tender and award of the work to M/s. Goyal Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. The allegation is that work was awarded to the Firm at a higher rate causing loss of a sum of Rs.1.14 Crores to the Government of India. The petitioner had tendered his resignation on 28.2.2006, which was then accepted w.e.f. 31.3.2006. Prior to 31.3.2006, the petitioner participated in one meeting only in respect of the work on 29.3.2006. In the aforesaid meeting, neither work was finalized, nor the tender was awarded to any party. In fact, tender was awarded on 19.8.2006, i.e., much prior to the resignation of the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been implicated in the matter. In the meeting held on 29.3.2006, it was decided to call further information/detail from the parties in regard to the specification. Thus, there was not even a move to accept or award the tender to any party. It was even noticed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘the C.B.I.’) in enquiry, but surprisingly when the bail application was heard along with others, the Court below rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner. Since the petitioner had resigned from the post much prior to finalization of the tender, he has wrongly been implicated in the matter. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3 On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. has opposed the bail application and submits that though the petitioner resigned from the post much prior to the finalization of the tender, but he led foundation for the fraud. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, the petitioner may not be granted bail. It was though admitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had not approved the technical bid or financial bid in favour of M/s. Goyal Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., but looking to the wrongful loss, which was initially taken as 1.14 Crores and otherwise wrongful loss is more than Rs.86 lacs, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. On perusal of the record, I find that petitioner participated in the meeting held on 29.3.2006 before his resignation, however, therein no decision was taken to award tender to a particular Firm more specifically M/s. Goyal Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. The process for finalization of the tender was not taken in the meeting dated 29.3.2006, thus looking to the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect the outcome of the trial, but looking to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the facts of this case warrants acceptance of the bail application and accordingly, the bail application of the 4 petitioner is accepted and I consider it just and proper to release the accused-petitioner namely, H.C. Dadhich s/o D.R. Dadhich on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.RC JAI 2007A0019 dated 18.12.2007 registered at Police Station C.B.I., Jaipur for offence under Section/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so (M.N. BHANDARI), J. Item No.S/19 Sunil