Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB-01)
RADC: NEW DELHI
Bail Matter No. 123/2024
FIR No. 08/2024
PS: Anti Corruption Branch
State vs. Anil Kumar Ahuja
U/s 7/13 of POC Act r/w 406/420/468/471/120B/34 IPC
14.08.2024
This first regular bail application u/s 483 BNSS moved
on behalf of the applicant/accused Anil Kumar Ahuja, s/o Late
Bhimsen Ahuja.
Present : Sh. Girish Giri, ld. Substitute Addl. P.P. for the
State.
Sh. Rajiv Mohan, ld. Counsel for the applicant/
accused Anil Kumar Ahuja.
IO/Insp. Krishan Kumar
Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused prays for
granting bail to the applicant/accused by submitting that
applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. It is stated that applicant/accused was arrested on
26.07.2024 It is stated that the applicant/accused was posted as Chief
Engineer (Health) and ADG in PWD, Delhi Govt., between the period
2018 to September 2020 and he superannuated from the service on
30.09.2020. The complaint is dated 18.02.2021. It is stated that after
retirement he is receiving pension, which one get only after clearance
of the Vigilance Department. It is stated that after retirement the
applicant/accused was selected as a Class-I Contractor by CPWD on
20.12.2021 and was working as such. It is stated that for getting listed
as Class-1 Contractor CPWD one has to get clearance from the
Vigilance Department, which was given to the applicant/accused on
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
28.10.2021. Eventually the applicant/accused was selected as L-1
bidder on 07.01.2022. It is stated that it has been alleged by the
prosecution that there were transactions of Rs. 1.5 crores between M/s
A.V.Enterprises and the applicant/accused, however, M/s
A.V.Enterprises was one of the Sub-Contractors of the applicant/
accused in connection with the contract that he received in his
capacity as L-1 Contractor from CPWD. The applicant/accused had
also obtained the letter of approval dated 27.01.2022 from CPWD to
appoint M/s A.V. Enterprises as a Specialized Contractor. It is stated
that the transaction of Rs. 1.5 crores between the applicant/accused
and M/s A.V. Enterprise are during the period between February 2022
to 20.04.2024 (i.e. long after the retirement of the applicant/accused in
September 2020) in which an amount of approximately Rs. 83 Lakhs
has been transferred by the applicant/accused to M/s A.V. Enterprises
and approximately Rs. 74 Lakhs have been credited to the account of
the applicant/accused from M/s A.V. Enterprises and thereby a figure
of Rs. 1.5 crores has been arrived at and the said figure does not have
any nexus with the performance of the duties of the applicant/accused
as a public servant. It is stated that as per the allegations an amount of
Rs. 6 Lakhs has been transferred to the account of daughter-in-law of
applicant/accused on 05.12.2020, however, the said amount was
transferred in lieu of sale of a car bearing no. DL-9CU-7333, which
was transferred from Ms. Rashi Ahuja, daughter-in-law of the
applicant/accused, to Ms. Archana on 10.01.2021. The said
transaction of sale of car also took place after retirement of the
applicant/accused.
It is stated that it is also an allegation against the
applicant/accused that he had demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs as commission/
bribe from the complainant and due to non-fulfillment of the demand,
the work alloted to him was cancelled by the applicant/accused. It is
stated that no such allegation was made by the complainant in the FIR
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
or at any earlier stage and the same has been revealed only in the reply
filed by the IO despite the fact that the complaint dated 18.02.2021
against the applicant/accused has been pending for many years. It is
also stated that even in the reply filed by the IO, it has been mentioned
that the complainant was one of the parties to the spot quotation but
the work was never alloted by PWD even after approval due to
administrative reasons and thus the applicant/accused had no role to
play in the cancellation.
It is also argued that the allegations against the
applicant/accused are omnibus in nature and the FIR contains
allegations that are generic in nature against the whole department. It
is urged that in relation to the request for the approval of the
Competent Authority u/s 17A PC Act, the office of Chief Engineer,
PWD, has written to the Vigilance Department of PWD that whereas
the complaint was for corruption of Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 crores, the total
work done by 12 agencies was of approximately Rs. 62 crores and out
of Rs. 62 crores the work done through work order was only Rs. 9.75
crores thereby showing that the complaint was beyond facts. It is
contended by ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused that the PWD
itself has stated that the work order was of Rs. 9.75 crores and that the
complaint was beyond facts, which shows that the contents of the
complaint itself are questionable.
It is urged that the allegations against the
applicant/accused that he had committed the alleged offences are
inferential in nature. No overt act has been ascribed to the
applicant/accused. It is urged that much emphasis has been given on
the fact that justification for declaring the work as ‘Emergent’ or that
no Emergent Certificate was given before giving the approval for spot
quotation has to be seen in the light of the fact that the CPWD manual
itself declares a pandemic as emergency situation and no specific
Emergency Certificate was required to be given and the allegations
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
against the applicant/accused pertain to COVID Pandemic period.
Moreover, not giving Emergency Certificate would not give rise to
any criminal liability and it may be a case of Departmental
Proceedings, if any. It is urged that even otherwise the
applicant/accused, who was posted as Chief Engineer with an
additional charge of ADG, was a part of the whole hierarchy of JE –
Assistant Engineer – Executive Engineer – Superintendent Engineer –
Chief Engineer – Additional Director General – Special Director –
Director General. It is urged that the process of awarding spot
quotation crosses various levels and after due verifications at each
step, the Chief Engineer grants the approval. It is stated that the Chief
Engineer is not the disbursing authority for any bills raised by the
contractors. It is urged that despite this fact, the IO has chosen to
arrest only the applicant/accused, while no sanction for investigation
has been obtained u/s 17A PC Act qua the other public officials in the
hierarchy. It is stated that the allegations regarding the forgery are not
against the applicant/accused and allegations are vague in nature. It
is not alleged that the applicant/accused has forged the documents in
any manner.
It is urged that even as per the reply filed by the IO,
sanction u/s 17A PC Act for initiating enquiry against the
applicant/accused was received from the competent authority vide
their letter dated 10.04.2023 and thereafter a detailed enquiry was
conducted by ACB, GNCTD. Subsequently, necessary permission
was obtained u/s 17A PC Act for registration of FIR and conducting
investigation vide order dated 01.05.2024. Accordingly, the present
FIR was registered on 06.05.2024 at P.S. ACB. It is contended that
ACB has been seized of enquiry / investigation in the present case
since April 2023 on the complaint which is dated 14.03.2021 and
substantial time has elapsed since then to conduct enquiry /
investigation in the present case. It is urged that the IO has failed to
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
point out any specific reason for custodial interrogation of the
applicant/accused. Moreover, the period of PC remand has already
elapsed. Hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant/accused in custody.
It is further urged that the applicant/accused retired in
September 2020 and the evidence is essentially documentary in
nature. Moreover, though the enquiry/investigation has been pending
against the applicant/accused with the ACB, since April 2023, there is
no allegation that the applicant/accused has tried to influence any
witness or tamper with the record.
It is further urged that applicant/accused undertakes
to join investigation with the IO/SHO concerned as and when required
as well as to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court.
Ld. Substitute Addl. P.P. for State opposed the bail
application by submitting that a complaint dated 18.02.2021 of Sh.
Surender Pal was received in ACB, wherein it is alleged that the
applicant/accused Anil Kumar Ahuja, the then Chief Engineer (Health
Zone), PWD, GNCT of Delhi in connivance with his subordinates, has
committed large scale irregularities and corruption in granting
approval and in execution of work orders during COVID-19 pandemic
thereby causing loss of around Rs. 200 crores to the Government
Exchequer. It is also alleged that the said scam of Rs. 200 crores was
allegedly done by applicant/accused and other PWD Officials in
connivance with firms/companies namely M/s A.V. Enterprises, M/s
Swastik Electroteck Pvt. Ltd., M/s Adore Traders, M/s Royal Electric
Works, M/s Said Aircon Engineers, M/s G.D.Enterprises, M/s Arora
Electric Works, M/s Vivek Associates, M/s Labotek, M/s
R.C.C.Enterprises, M/s Harsh India Enterprises and M/s Sarnam
Associates wherein these firms/companies were paid for no work or
incomplete work. These contractors have obtained the full payments
from PWD by presenting fake/forged bills thereby causing huge losses
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
to the Govt. Exchequer.
It is further submitted that applicant/accused owns a
company namely M/s Adore Traders, which he has taken over after
his retirement and he has many
benami properties in the name of his
close relatives. During investigation complainant revealed that he was
allotted a work order, which as cancelled by applicant/accused due to
non-payment of Rs. 10 Lakhs as commission/bribe. It is further
mentioned in the reply that the complainant was one of the parties to
the spot quotation but the work was never alloted by PWD even after
approval due to administrative reasons. It is also stated in the reply
that on examination of statement of current account no. 3678335004
belonging to M/s A.V.Enterprises, it was found that on 05.12.2020, an
amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs has been transferred to the account of Rashi
Ahuja, daughter-in-law of applicant/accused. It is stated that the said
car bearing no. DL-9CU-7333 make ‘Honda City’ has been
transferred from Ms. Rashi Ahuja to Ms. Archana on 10.01.2021. It is
further stated that on examination of the bank account of M/s
A.V.Enterprises and applicant/accused, it was revealed that there is
huge financial transaction to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores between them
after the retirement of applicant/accused.
Additional reply alongwith details of the bank
statements and transactions between M/s A.V.Enterprises and the
applicant/accused has been filed by the IO today indicating that
approximately Rs. 83 Lakhs have been credited to the account of M/s
A.V.Enterprises from the accused and approximately Rs. 74 Lakhs
have been credited to the account of applicant/accused between the
period February 2022 to April 2024, to explain the transaction of Rs.
1.5 crores between the applicant accused and M/s A.V.Enterprises.
During investigation it was further revealed that the
alleged firms could not produce E-Way bills having transaction details
against any of the tax invoices produced by them and even many
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
bills/purchase vouchers filed by the firms were prior to awarding
tender to firms or even 6-7 months of opening of the
quotations/tender, which are in violation of work order conditions.
Some of the firms/companies are neither in existence nor found
operated from given addresses. In the tender process, forged bidders
were planted by the beneficiaries contractor in connivance with
alleged PWD Officials. It is urged that the applicant/accused was
senior official of PWD and as such he can influence the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence, if bail is granted to him and as such a prayer
is made that bail ought not to be granted to the applicant/accused.
I have heard arguments and perused the record
including FIR and replies filed by the IO.
Perusal of the reply filed by the IO reveals that the
permission for enquiry u/s 17A PC Act against the applicant/accused
was obtained from the competent authority vide letter dated
10.04.2023 and thereafter a detailed enquiry was conducted against
the applicant/accused by ACB, GNCTD. After conducting detailed
enquiry further permission u/s 17A PC Act for registration of FIR and
conducting investigation against the applicant/accused was obtained
from the competent authority vide order dated 01.05.2024 and
thereafter the present FIR was registered on 06.05.2024 at PS ACB.
Accordingly, the enquiry against the applicant/accused on the
complaint in issue was pending with the ACB since April 2023 and
hence, the ACB was seized of the complaint qua the applicant/accused
since then. Hence, substantial time has already elapsed while
conducting enquiry/investigation qua the applicant/accused. On a
specific query put by the court, the IO submits that there are no
allegations against the accused for trying to influence any witness
during the aforesaid period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
period of custody of applicant/accused as well as the fact that
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
substantial enquiry / investigation has already been conducted against
the applicant/accused during which period there are no allegations of
the applicant/accused trying to influence any witness or investigation,
I deem it fit to grant bail to the applicant/accused. Accordingly,
applicant/accused Anil Kumar Ahuja is admitted to bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two
sureties in the like amount subject to following conditions :
(i) That applicant/accused shall join investigation with
the IO/SHO concerned as and when required;
(ii) That applicant/accused shall not try to contact or
influence, directly or indirectly, any of the witnesses of
present case and shall not tamper with evidence;
(iii) That applicant/accused shall not misuse the liberty
of bail by indulging in commission of similar offences
in future;
(iv) That applicant/accused shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the Court;
(v) That applicant/accused shall intimate the IO/SHO
concerned in case of change of his address.
Accordingly, bail application stands disposed off.
Copy of order be given dasti to the ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused, IO and be also sent to the Superintendent Jail
concerned.
( Deepali Sharma )
Special Judge, PC Act(ACB-01)
RADC, New Delhi.
14.08.2024
FIR No. 08/2024, PS ACB Bail Matter No. 123/2024 Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --