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

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 334
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9963 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-47723
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

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)
10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
335
List of Cases cited:

## Text

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)
10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
335
List of Cases cited:

1. M/s Ashoka Smokeless Vs U.O.I. and in
connected matters, (2007) 2 SCC 640

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

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

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

5. Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of 2021
passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021,
Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 922

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

7. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
(1978) 1 SCC 240

8. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s
438 Cr.P.C. No.1094 of 2020, Ankit Bharti Vs St.
of U.P. & anr.
(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
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.12 of 2012
arising
out
of
Case
Crime
No.
R.C.0062011A0006
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. A coal linkage was granted to M/s
Jai Durga Industries, Chandauli in the year
1987. A new coal distribution policy was
introduced on 18.10.2007 by the Ministry
of Coal, envisaging a new mechanism of
coal distribution by way of entering into the
Fuel Supply Agreement in compliance with
the directions of the Supreme Court in M/s
Ashoka Smokeless Vs. Union of India and
in connected matters1. As per new policy,
the prices were to be fixed by Coal India
Limited. Pursuant to the said newly devised
system, a Fuel Supply Agreement was
entered into between the M/s Jai Durga
Industries and the Coal Company. It is
alleged in the FIR that the coal supplied
was at the notified price fixed by the Coal
India Limited to streamline the rates across
the country. The applicant is the Director in
the Company M/s Jai Durga Industries and
the said Company is alleged to have sold
the coal supplied to it in the open market,
thus, extricated undue gain by black
marketing.

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
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 was
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.3,32,363/-
on 19.11.2009. Learned counsel has further
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 for 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 Gujarat2 and Siddharth Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and another3, the
applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory
bail.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has further
argued that the charge-sheet has already
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).
It has further been argued by the learned
Senior Counsel that during investigation, a
total wrongful gain of Rs.77,17,664.64/-
has been proved by providing the said coal
in black market to M/s Drolia Coke
Industries Private Limited. Learned Senior
Counsel
has
also
stated
that
the
Enforcement Directorate, Allahabad had
provisionally attached the Flat No. T-2206-01, 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 argued
that neither the Coal India Limited nor the
NCL has filed any complaint against the
applicant at any forum.
10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
337

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 not been found functional for
the last couple of years. As per the records
of the EPFO, it had only one employee
while it would have needed much more
employee i.e. about 99 employees to make
the factory functional.

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)4, 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 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
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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-cooperation 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. 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 another5 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 alleged amount has been
deposited by the applicant.

11. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of 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 Gujarat6, 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
10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
339
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 Pradesh7 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.12 of 2012
arising
out
of
Case
Crime
No.
R.C.0062011A0006 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) in case charge-sheet is submitted
the applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence during the trial;
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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 340
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
12073 of 2021

Yogendra Nath Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
K. Saran, Amit Kumar Kaushal, Himanshu
Suryavanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh

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

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. M/s Ashoka Smokeless Vs U.O.I., (2007) 2
SCC 640

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

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

4. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) , 2020
SCC Online SC 98

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

6. Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of 2021
passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021,
Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr. dated 16.12.2021

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

8. 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 Himanshu Suryavanshi
and Sri Amit Kumar Kaushal, 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
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
Case
Crime
No.
R.C.0062011A0006, 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