IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18344 of 2011 Brig. Satish Kapur (Retd.) S/o Late Shri D.R. Kapur, R/o 3644, D- 3, Vasantkunj, New Delhi – 110070 …… Petitioner Versus The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation …. Opposite Party ----------- 7. 20.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 120B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case is that the NHAI contracted L & T for construction of highway in a certain part of Jharkhand. NHAI also entered into a contract agreement with Ritesh limited India and Halcrow U.K. to supervise the execution of work of the contractor. The petitioner was appointed the Resident Engineer by Rites Halcrow. As per hierarchy he is the third man. In course of construction of the roads, the L & T committed certain irregularities and went beyond the contract, they had entered into with the NHAI. The allegation is that the petitioner’s firm also gave a tacit approval of the same and allowed work through sub-contractors to be executed, which was not quality work. It was alleged that the petitioner had together with L & T caused loss to the NHAI. It has been submitted that the petitioner was just one of the persons, who was responsible for supervising the work and the sole responsibility cannot be fastened on him. - 2 - The further submission is that it was not the petitioner’s firm, which had sub-contracted work in excess of the written agreement and, therefore, the petitioner was not at fault. The petitioner specifically asserts that no incriminating material was recovered during course of search from the petitioner’s house and all along the petitioner co-operated with the investigation and will continue to do so during trial. The further submission is that there is no likelihood of the petitioner fleeing away from the court of law since he permanently resides in Delhi with his family. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. contends that as per the charge sheet full complicity of the petitioner is demonstrated in the action of L & T sub- contracting the work and getting substandard work executed through them and he fully knew that L & T had sub-contracted entire work to the two agencies and forwarded proposal of M/s L & T to NHAI. Considering that the petitioner was not an official of the L & T and, therefore, was not responsible for sub-letting the contract and getting substandard work executed through incompetent and unapproved subcontractors nor did he forward the application of the L & T for sub-contracting the work as also that he was not the sole man responsible for supervising the entire stretch of around 80 kilometers as also no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner, who is a retired army personnel and a recipient of the - 3 - President’s Medal, behind the bars, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of 12 weeks from today in connection with Special case No.28 of 2004 arising out of RC 7(S) of 2004 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also conditions (i) That one of the bailor shall be the wife of the petitioner and the other bailor shall be the son of the petitioner. The bailor will undertake to furnish information to the Court about any change in address of the petitioner, (ii) That the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse, (iii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. The petitioner will be required to surrender his passport before the court below and seek permission of the court if at all he has to travel abroad. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )