MP 1 ABA515_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 515 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus 1. Sandip Ramchandra Rajpure 2. Amardeep Narendra Keer 3. Sanjay Mahadev Shirke ... Respondents Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for the Applicant. Mr. R. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER 2011 P. C. : This application is moved by the State for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.1 to 3, in Crime No.23 of 2011 registered with Ratnagiri Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 418, 468, 477(A) of the IPC, by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri. 2. According to the prosecution, in view of the facts and circumstances the order passed by the Sessions Court was improper and illegal and the anticipatory bail should not have been granted. Secondly, the condition of attending the police station is also not followed. 3. On perusal of the F.I.R. and the affidavits, it appears that under the scheme for providing drinking water to the rural people, a technical sanction was given to a project for Village Pomendi Budruk, Taluka and District Ratnagiri. For the purpose of preparing the technical plan and for providing technical advice, guidance and supervision, accused No.1 Sandip Rajpure was engaged. He had prepared the plan which was approved and he was also paid his fees. As per the plan, a contract of laying pipelines was given to accused No.2. Accused No.3 Sanjay Shirke had supplied substandard material for laying the pipelines in the MP 2 ABA515_11 wells. It is contended that accused No.1 Sandip had misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,70,568/-, which he received as honourarium or fees. Accused No.3 misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,12,098/- by supplying substandard material, and accused No.2 Amardeep Keer, who was the contractor and was given the contract to execute the work, received and misappropriated an amount of Rs.18,69,634/-. It is contended that as per the sanctioned plan, tender terms and the agreement, accused No.2 was to execute the work, having a motor of 35 HP, which could discharge 20,850 litre water from the well per hour and the capacity of the motor was to raise water to the height of 219 meters and accordingly, storage tank was to be constructed. However, on inspection, after the completion of the work, it was found water could not reach that height and that the water could reach only 130 meters as the capacity of motor was not sufficient, and therefore, it was not possible to store the water. Both the pumps were defective. As per the terms of the contract, 100 MM G.I. Pipe (medium) with IS Code 1239 was to be provided. The weight of such pipe was to be 12.1 kg/meter. But on inspection, it was found that the pipe was of substandard material and the weight was only 6.84 kg/meter. Thus, though huge amount was spent on the said work, it could not be put to any use of the public. 4. Taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R., it appears that as far as accused No.1 is concerned, he had received his fees for the purpose of preparing the plan and giving the necessary technical advice and guidelines. He had received only his fees as per the contract. Accused No.3 had no direct contact with the Zilla Parishad or the local Grampanchayat. He supplied the material to accused No.2, who was a private contractor, as per his requirements and, therefore, prima facie it cannot be held that accused No.3 was in collusion with accused No.2 in providing the substandard material. As a businessman, he must have supplied the material to accused No.2 as per his demand and must have been paid the price for that material. Therefore, I do not find any substance to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.1 and 3. MP 3 ABA515_11 5. As far as accused No.2 is concerned, he was the main contractor who was to execute the work. He was fully aware about the terms of the contract, the standard of the material to be supplied and the purpose of the same. As he played a fraud by supplying substandard material including the pipes, meters and pumps which could not be put to any use for the purpose of water supply to the people, the important scheme of the Government had become a failure. It is true that the authorities can also take action against him for refund of the consideration amount and damages for the breach of the contract, but at the same time, he had prima facie committed serious offences of cheating, misappropriation and supply of the substandard material against the terms of the contract and received the whole amount by making representation that he had done the work as per the terms of the contract. 6. In our country, huge amounts are provided by the Central and State Governments for the development and upliftment of the rural area but unfortunately because of such unscrupulous contractors and officers, major portion of the amount so supplied is either siphoned of or work of poor quality is done and the benefit of the central plans and budgetary provisions does not reach the people. In my opinion, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant anticipatory bail to such unscrupulous contractors because of whom several important schemes of Central and State Governments for the development of the rural area become a failure and the people do not get the benefits which they deserve. It would be improper to be sympathetic to such contractors. In my opinion, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, accused No.2, who, as the main contractor, appears to have committed the offences does not deserve anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge neither considered any material nor discussed the facts in the order by which he granted the anticipatory bail. Therefore, it does not appear that anticipatory bail has been granted after considering the merits of the case. Hence, in the interests of justice, it is necessary to cancel such anticipatory bail. MP 4 ABA515_11 7. In view of the above, the application is partly allowed. Anticipatory bail granted to accused No.2 Amardeep Keer stands cancelled. However, the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.1 and 3 stands rejected. 8. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of cancellation of anticipatory bail. As and when accused No.2 surrenders or is arrested, and if he moves an application for bail, it shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (J. H. BHATIA, J)