The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Devendra Kumar Gangal, an accused in the Noida Cricket Stadium scam case, saying that corruption is a menace which is eating the vitals of the economy of this country.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CRPC filed by Devendra Kumar Gangal.
The application under Section 438 CrPC has been filed by the accused-applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in a case under Sections 120-B read with 409, 420, 466, 467, 469 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/STF, New Delhi.
The FIR under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469 and 471 IPC and 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 13.1.2012 at Police Station Sector 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP for alleged corrupt practices while executing engineering work between 14.12.2011 and 23.12.2011, in which agreement bonds for Rs 954.38 Crore were executed by the Engineering Department of Noida Authority.
The investigation of the case was transferred to CBI as per the order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the Court at Lucknow. The Court directed to conduct an investigation into all allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money by infamous accused Yadav Singh and in regard to all transactions, persons and entities connected thereto.
In pursuance to the said direction by the Court, STB Branch of CBI, Delhi registered a case on 30.7.2015 against Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer, Noida and Yamuna Expressway Authorities and other unknown persons under Section 120-B read with 409, 420, 466, 467, 469 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI had investigated the investigation thoroughly and filed supplementary charge sheets in other instances of this case. It is said that the trial is in progress.
The case relates to one of the 1,280 contracts of Rs 954.38 crore regarding construction of Cricket Stadium with Pavilion Building at Integrated Sports Complex, Sector 21A, Noida.
The Court noted the investigation revealed that M/s STUP Consultant Private Limited was appointed as consultant for the construction of Integrated Sports Complex including the construction of the Cricket Stadium Project at Noida. Accused NU Khan, the then Senior Consultant of M/s STUP Consultant Private Limited, had accordingly submitted a detailed estimate for the construction of the cricket stadium project on 23.10.2010 and 4.11.2020 to Noida Authority and had placed the rates of the 57 non-scheduled items by taking quotation from the single party in each case. No competitive rates from the market were obtained. It is alleged that the rates taken from a single party in respect of 57 non-scheduled items were quite high and one of the quotations dated 22.10.2010 taken from M/s United Engineering Works was found forged. Further, the quotation of M/s Sukri Paint and Chemicals for the work to be held at Hyderabad was used for this work, which could have been lower for Delhi/NCR work.
It is further alleged that accused NU Khan, the then Senior Consultant of M/s STUP Consultant Private Limited, entered into a criminal conspiracy during 2010-11 with officers of the Noida Authority including Yadav Singh, CME (Jal)/Chief Engineer (Grade-II)/Engineer-in-Chief, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the then CPE, Deepak Kumar, the then Junior Engineer, RK Johri, the then JE(T), Anil Sharma, the then JE(Contract), RK Jain, the then APE, SK Gupta, the then PE, Sant Ram, the then CPE, AC Sigh, the then Finance Controller and the accused-applicant, who was Director of M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV to facilitate allotment of tender in favour of M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV on inflated estimate by corrupt and illegal means.
The Court further noted the investigation revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the members of the Estimate Committee of Noida Authority including SK Srivastava, CPE and AC Singh, Finance Controller did not raise any query on inflated rate, forged quotation, single quotation, relevancy etc and recommended the vetted estimate as it was received from IIT, for administrative and financial approval by the CEO, without weighing the technical specification rates etc, which was finally approved by the competent authority.
It is further said that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, Anil Kumar Shrma, JE(Contract), Deepak Kumar, JE, RK Jain, APE and Sant Ram, CPE prepared the favourable tender documents to qualify M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV, lead partner of which is the accused-applicant. The pre-qualification criteria fixed in bid documents were made contradictory to each other in order to favour M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV.
It is further alleged that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV was sold tender documents and allowed it to participate in the tender proceedings against the CPWD Work Manual. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, only three bidders were allowed to participate by the office of Sant Ram, CPE. The investigation would disclose that M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV and another participating bidder namely M/s Jyoti Buildtech formed cartel as the FDR of M/s Jyoti Buildtech was prepared from the amount transferred by M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV. M/s Jyoti Buildtech received Rs 25 lakh on 27.9.2011 in its account from the account of M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV. This transaction would reveal that a cartel was formed between these two contractors. The investigation also revealed that the whole tendering process was a farce. M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV was already chosen/pre-decided for allotment of work.
Sant Ram, Chief Project Officer, and Yadav Singh, Chief Mechanical Engineer, and AC Singh, Finance Controller, were the members of the tender committee and declared the three participating contractors as qualified in technical bid. However, none of the contractors was eligible in terms of experience and turnover. M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV was not meeting any of the qualifying criteria. However, instead of rejecting their technical bid, it was accepted. The members of the tender committee without examining the tender with respect to the justified market rate and without comparing the tender rates with the rate accepted for other works in the past and without seeing the eligibility in terms of experience and turnover and without satisfying about entry of joint venture etc recommended M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV for allotment of work, which was finally accepted by the CEO on 23.12.2011.
The investigation further disclosed that the accused applicant, who was the Director of M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV, had good relations with accused Yadav Singh. He had constructed the two houses of Yadav Singh during 2009-2010 and Smt Vidya Devi, sister-in-law of Yadav Singh, was a Founder Director and major shareholder of Ms/ Golflink Hospitality Private Limited owned by the accused-applicant.
In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV was given huge benefit as the difference in the estimated price and the price on which the material was actually purchased by the contractor was found too wide. The total loss of Rs 86,81,267.48 was assessed and the actual payment of Rs 11,06,35,905 was made to Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV.
Thus, from the allegations, it is evident that the last date for submission of the bid was extended thrice to accommodate the predetermined bidder i.e M/s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV, which was allotted work at exorbitant rates as the other companies, which participated in the tendering process, were participated for the name sack and they formed cartel with the connivance of the other accused. The allegations and the investigation report would suggest deep-rooted conspiracy to defraud the public fund by the accused-applicant and other co-accused in execution of the work of Cricket Stadium by M/ s Anand Buildtech Private Limited/JV.
From the reading of the chargesheet, it would be evident that since the accused-applicant had constructed two houses for the accused Yadav Singh and Smt Vidya Devi, the tender committee was under an obligation to see that the firm of the accused-applicant may get qualified and the tender to be given to it at exorbitant rates without there being any competition.
“Considering the above facts and also taking note of the fact that the firm of the accused-applicant was not eligible to be allotted the work and the work was allotted by adopting a farce tender process, which has resulted into huge loss to the Noida authority, the Court finds a little substance in the submission of the counsel for the accused-applicant that some of the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of the Court, therefore, the Court may also enlarge the accused-applicant, who is one of the real beneficiary of the scam/corruption, on anticipatory bail.
Large scale economic crimes are craftily planned and executed. It is well settled that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, magnitude and gravity of offence and nature of evidence in support of accusations.
The Court has to take into consideration while considering the anticipatory/regular bail application, nature of offence and the Court should refuse the bail if the offence is serious and is of huge magnitude, particularly, in economic offences. Corruption is a menace which is eating the vitals of the economy of this country.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation that the accused-applicant in criminal conspiracy with the officers of the Noida Development Authority to defraud the public fund of several crores of rupees, the Court is of the view that he is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail,” the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.