# Ratan Singh v. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 329
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9962 of 2021
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ratan-singh-v-c-b-i-anti-corruption-branch-lko-opp-party-47722
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)-
Applicant-Director of M/s. Drolia Coke Industries
Pvt
Ltd,
Chandauli-manufactures
special
smokeless fuels-receiving raw materials from
coal mines projects of NCl on subsidized ratesdoes not possess any coal-sell it in black
market-surprise check-factory running below
par-half of its capacity-out of four only one
furnance working-only four labourers workingno electricity connection-chargesheet filed on
31.05.2012-Applicant not misused the libertyentitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
329
court
concerned
with
the
following
conditions:-

I. that the applicant shall not, directly
or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the court or to
any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

II. that the applicant shall not leave
India during pendency of the trial without
prior permission from the concerned court
and shall also surrender his passport, if any,
before the concerned court forthwith;

III. that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

IV. that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;
V. that in case of breach of any of the above
conditions, the court below shall have the
liberty to cancel the bail.

29.

Accordingly,
the
instant
anticipatory bail application is allowed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 329
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
9962 of 2021

Ratan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Himanshu Hemant Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)-
Applicant-Director of M/s. Drolia Coke Industries
Pvt
Ltd,
Chandauli-manufactures
special
smokeless fuels-receiving raw materials from
coal mines projects of NCl on subsidized ratesdoes not possess any coal-sell it in black
market-surprise check-factory running below
par-half of its capacity-out of four only one
furnance working-only four labourers workingno electricity connection-chargesheet filed on
31.05.2012-Applicant not misused the libertyentitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152

2. Siddharth Vs St. of U. P. & anr., (2021) SCC
Online SC 615

3. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC online SC 98

4. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 922

5. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152

6. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
(1978) 1 SCC 240
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Himanshu Hemant Gupta, Sri Ashwarya
Sinha and Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the
applicant as well as Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the Central
Bureau of Investigation assisted by Sri
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Akhilendra Singh, Advocate and also
perused the material available on record.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Criminal Case No.10 of 2012
arising
out
of
Case
Crime
No.
R.C.0062011A0008
of
2011,
under
Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police
Station CBI, ACB, District Lucknow, with
a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. As per the allegations of the FIR, the
applicant, who is the Director of M/s Drolia
Coke Industries Private Limited, Chandauli
which manufactures Special Smokeless Fuels
and are receiving the raw materials from the
coal mine projects of NCL under the New
Distribution Policy of Government of India
on subsidized rates, does not actually process
the coal, instead sale it in the black market at
a high premium and earning huge wrongful
gains. In pursuance of a credible information
through a squealer, a surprise check was
taken at the factory premises and it was found
that the factory was running below par i.e.
less than half of its capacity. Out of four
furnaces, only one was found running and
only four labourers were found working in
the factory. There was no electricity
connection although 125 KVA generator was
found there. A shortage of 35.25 MT of coal
was found. As the Coal India Limited has
represented by NCL in this case, the
connivance of unknown officers/officials of
the NCL in the illegal sale of coal by the
company was suspected. The wrongful
pecuniary gain were calculated to the tune of
Rs.8.36 crores by the company during the
period of 2010-11.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

4. Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant has stated that the
applicant is innocent and has nothing to do
with the said offence. The matter is of civil
nature and the applicant is being harassed by
the agency by adding criminal colour to it,
thus, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the applicant in custody. There is no
apprehension of the applicant fleeing away
from the justice or tampering with any
evidence which is in the possession of C.B.I.
and E.D.

5. Learned Senior Counsel has placed
reliance on Clause-4.4 and 15.5.5 of the Fuel
Supply Agreement (Annexure-4 to the
affidavit annexed with the bail application)
wherein the penalty for diversion of coal in
the open market is provided as the forfeiture
of security money and termination of the
contract. Learned Senior Counsel has further
stated that the coal supplied to it at the
notified price fixed by the Coal India Limited
as per the New Coal Distribution Policy dated
18.10.2007. He has further argued that on
28.04.2008, the applicant furnished a bank
guarantee to the NCL to the tune of
Rs.33,12,913/- and an additional bank
guarantee of Rs.3,39,858/- on 05.12.2009.
Learned counsel has next submitted that the
Company represented by the applicant is a
private company and the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act are not
attracted to its case. Learned counsel on
behalf of the applicant has undertaken that
there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing
from the judicial proceedings and in the light
of the judgement of the Apex Court in
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of
Gujarat1 and Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another2, the applicant may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has further
argued that the charge-sheet has already
10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
331
been filed in the matter way back on
31.05.2012 and the applicant has not
misused or abused the interim protection
granted to him by various courts since then.
Much reliance has been placed on the fact
that in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI, no
prosecution has been initiated against any
of the erring officials of the NCL. It has
further been argued that no subsidy was
involved in the said coal supply as the
information supplied by the Coal India
Limited to the RTI application filed on
behalf of the Company (Annexure-8 to the
affidavit annexed with the bail application).
Learned Senior Counsel has also stated that
the Enforcement Directorate, Allahabad
had provisionally attached the Flat No. T22-06-01, CWG Village, near Akshardham
Temple at Noida Crossing located off NH24,
Delhi-110092
to
the
extent
of
Rs.70,25,716.40/- which alleged to be the
proceeds of the Agreement held in the
name of the applicant being the Director of
M/s Jai Durga Industries and M/s Drolia
Coke Industries Private Limited. The
applicant had preferred a Writ Petition
bearing No.6314 of 2020 before the High
Court of Delhi wherein the High Court
directed that the aforesaid provisionally
attached
property
shall
be
released
subjected
to
the
defendants
therein
depositing Rs.70,25,716.40/- which was the
alleged
proceeds
of
the
Agreement.
Learned Senior Counsel has stated that the
applicant
had
deposited
a
sum
of
Rs.70,25,716.40/- before the Registrar
General of High Court in compliance of the
order dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure-14 to
the affidavit annexed with the bail
application). Learned Senior Counsel has
also stated that as the present subject matter
pertains to an amount of Rs.70,25,716.40/-
which has already been deposited by the
applicant, no cause of action remains in the
subject matter. It has further been stated
that neither the Coal India Limited nor the
NCL has filed any complaint against the
applicant at any forum.

7. Per contra, Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the CBI assisted
by Sri Akhilendra Singh, Advocate has
vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail
application on the ground that the applicant
had diverted the coal provided to him at the
controlled rate to the black market and as
per the joint surprise check and the
independent technical inspection team, the
factory had been found functional partly.
As per the records of the EPFO, it had only
four employees while it would have needed
much more employee i.e. about 100
employees to make the factory operational.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant
has
also
relied
upon
the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)3, wherein it has been held in paras63, 69 and 75 which read as under:-

"63.
Clearly,
therefore,
where
Parliament wished to exclude or restrict
the power of courts, under Section 438 of
the Code, it did so in categorical terms.
Parliament's omission to restrict the right
of citizens, accused of other offences from
the
right
to
seek
anticipatory
bail,
necessarily leads one to assume that
neither a blanket restriction can be read
into by this court, nor can inflexible
guidelines in the exercise of discretion, be
insisted upon- that would amount to
judicial legislation.

*****
69. It is important to notice here that there
is nothing in the provisions of Section 438
which suggests that Parliament intended to
restrict its operation, either as regards the
time period, or in terms of the nature of the
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offences in respect of which, an applicant
had to be denied bail, or which special
considerations were to apply. In this
context, it is relevant to recollect that the
court would avoid imposing restrictions or
conditions in a provision in the absence of
an apparent or manifest absurdity, flowing
from the plain and literal interpretation of
the statute (Ref. Chandra Mohan v. State of
Uttar Pradesh). In RBI v. Peerless General
Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., the
relevance
of
text
and
context
was
emphasized in the following terms:

"33. Interpretation must depend on the
text and the context. They are the bases of
interpretation. One may well say if the text
is the texture, context is what gives the
colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are
important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the
contextual. A statute is best interpreted
when we know why it was enacted. With
this knowledge, the statute must be read,
first as a whole and then section by section,
clause by clause, phrase by phrase and
word by word. If a statute is looked at, in
the context of its enactment, with the
glasses of the statute-maker, provided by
such context, its scheme, the sections,
clauses, phrases and words may take
colour and appear different than when the
statute is looked at without the glasses
provided by the context. With these glasses
we must look at the Act as a whole and
discover what each section, each clause,
each phrase and each word is meant and
designed to say as to fit into the scheme of
the entire Act. No part of a statute and no
word of a statute can be construed in
isolation. Statutes have to be construed so
that every word has a place and everything
is in its place."

****

75. For the above reasons, the
answer to the first question in the
reference made to this bench is that there
is no offence, per se, which stands
excluded from the purview of Section 438,
except the offences mentioned in Section
438(4). In other words, anticipatory bail
can be granted, having regard to all the
circumstances, in respect of all offences.
At the same time, if there are indications
in any special law or statute, which
exclude relief under Section 438(1) they
would have to be duly considered. Also,
whether anticipatory offences should be
granted,
in
the
given
facts
and
circumstances of any case, where the
allegations relating to the commission of
offences of a serious nature, with certain
special
conditions,
is
a
matter
of
discretion to be exercised, having regard
to the nature of the offences, the facts
shown, the background of the applicant,
the likelihood of his fleeing justice (or not
fleeing justice); likelihood of co-operation
or non-co-operation with the investigating
agency or police, etc. There can be no
inflexible time frame for which an order of
anticipatory bail can continue.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has also placed reliance on para91.1 of Sushila Aggarwal (Supra) which
reads as under:-

91.1. Regarding Question No. 1, this
court holds that the protection granted to
a person under Section 438 Cr.PC should
not invariably be limited to a fixed period;
it should enure in favour of the accused
without any restriction on time. Normal
conditions under Section 437(3) read with
Section 438(2) should be imposed; if there
are specific facts or features in regard to
any offence, it is open for the court to
impose
any
appropriate
condition
(including fixed nature of relief, or its
being tied to an event) etc."
10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
333

10. On the other hand, Sri Anurag
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI
has further placed reliance upon the
judgement of Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation and another4 and has
stated that according to the said judgement,
the case of the applicant falls in the
Category- B and D, hence, the provisions
of Section 438 Cr.P.C. do not apply to the
present case but he could not dispute the
fact that the amount of Rs.70,25,716.40/-
has been deposited by the applicant.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has placed much reliance on the
order passed by the Apex Court in
Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of
2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 5191
of 2021, Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and
another dated 16.12.2021, wherein it has
been clarified by the Apex Court as under:-

"We are also putting a caution that
merely by categorizing certain offences as
economic offences which may be noncognizable, it does not mean that a
different meaning is to be given to our
order."

12. It has further been argued by the
learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
that there are no criminal antecedents of the
applicant except two cases instituted
against him at the same time.

13. As per the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai
Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat5, it has held that
the nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended,
the
previous
criminal
antecedents of the applicant whether he has
previously
undergone
imprisonment
on
conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee
and where the accusation has been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant
by
arresting
him,
are
the
circumstances that are to be taken into
account as per Section 438 Cr.P.C.

14. It was observed by V.R.
Krishnaiyer, J. in Gudikanti Narasimhulu
and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh6 that:

"1. ....... The issue of (Bail) is one of
liberty, justice, public safety and burden of
the public treasury, all of which insist that a
developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to
a socially sensitized judicial process.

.... After all, personal liberty of an
accused or convict is fundamental, suffering
lawful eclipse only in terms of 'procedure
established by law'. The last four words of
Article 21 are the life of that human right."

15.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and upon hearing
the learned counsel for the parties and also
perusing
all
the
judgements
referred
hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the
Division Bench of this Court has left open the
question to the Court whether to undertake
the anticipatory bail application directly at the
High Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory
Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1094 of
2020, Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and
another. Furthermore, as the charge-sheet
was filed on 31.05.2012 and the applicant has
not misused the liberty granted to him vide
various orders, the applicant is entitled to be
released on anticipatory bail in this case.

16. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest,
let the accused-applicant Ratan Singh, be
released forthwith in Criminal Case No.10
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.
R.C.0062011A0008
of
2011,
under
Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police
Station CBI, ACB, District Lucknow, on
bail on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of
the police station concerned with the
following conditions:-

(i) that the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly
or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the court or to
any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii) that the applicant shall surrender
his passport, if any, to the concerned trial
Court forthwith. His passport will remain in
custody of the concerned trial Court;

(iv) that the applicant shall not leave
India during the pendency of trial without
prior permission from the concerned trial
Court;

(v) that in default of any of the
conditions
mentioned
above,
the
investigating officer shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

(vi) that it is directed that the trial may
be concluded in accordance with law
expeditiously, preferably, within a period
of one year from the date of this order,
independently without being prejudiced by
any observations made by this court while
considering
or
deciding
the
present
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant;

(vii) that in case charge-sheet is
submitted the applicant shall not tamper
with the evidence during the trial;

(viii) that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

(ix) that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;

17. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions the court below shall have
the liberty to cancel the bail.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 334
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
9963 of 2021

Ratan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Himanshu Hemant Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988 -Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)-
Applicant-director of M/s. Jai Durga Industries,
Chandauli-coal
linkage
was
granted-coal
supplied to it by the Coal India Limited at
notified price-company sold it in open marketblack
marketing-chargesheet
filed
on
31.05.2012- Applicant not misused the liberty
granted-entitled to be released on Anticipatory
Bail.

Application allowed. (E-9)