Menu
Dharam Veer | |
---|---|
Dharam Ke Bina Veerta Vyarth Hai, Aur Dharam Ki Raksha Karna Hi Veeron Ka Kartavya Hai | |
Genre | Period drama |
Created by | Sagar Films |
Written by | Varun Gautam, Meenakshi Sagar, Kalpesh Modi. |
Directed by | Dharmesh shah, nikhil sinha, Mukesh kumar singh,Inayat shaikh |
Presented by | NDTV Group |
Starring | Rajat Tokas, Mugdha Chaphekar, Vikrant Massey, Harssh Rajput, Rupali Ahuja Mehul Vyas |
Opening theme | Dharam Veer |
Country of origin | India |
Original language(s) | Hindi |
No. of episodes | 195 |
Production | |
Executive producer(s) | Upasna Mann |
Producer(s) | Moti Sagar Meenakshi Sagar Amrit Sagar Akash Sagar |
Production location(s) | Baroda, Gujarat |
Editor(s) | Mohd. Shums |
Camera setup | Shahbaaz Khan |
Running time | 22 minutes |
Release | |
Original network | NDTV Imagine |
Original release | 21 January – 30 October 2008 |
Dharam Veer is an Indian period television drama. It is a fictional tale of two princes, named Dharam and Veer, and their adventures as they traverse the path of life. It is presented by Sagar Films.
Plot[edit]
Watch YouTube - Dharam Veer 4th Dec 33 - surbhi1009 on dailymotion. Veera-Ek Veer Ki Ardaas. 114 Dharam Veer 26 Jun Part 2 137347. Home English Hindi Tamil.
The story begins by introducing the 13th-century kingdom of Aryanagar, where people are divided into the royalty (the Aryavarts) and the slaves (the Shramiks). While the Aryavarts are in charge of managing the affairs of the state and caring for the needs of the slaves, the Shramiks fulfill their duties by devoting their lives toward the welfare of the kingdom. King Aryavardhan believes that the system works for all. However, there is dissent and frustration amongst the slaves due to the humiliation and brutality they have to face at the hands Aryavardhan's older brother, Jaivardhan. A young slave named Soma dares to voice his dissent, and Aryavardhan gives Soma freedom by banishing him from the kingdom, but Jaivardhan makes a mockery of this decision by killing Soma.
Soma's son is born, believed by the slaves to be the messiah who will save them from the Aryavarts' tyranny. Jaivardhan sets the slave residences ablaze, killing all newborn children to ensure that their messiah does not survive. However, Soma's widow puts her son in a basket and throws it into the river; it is later discovered by Aryavardhan and Jaivardhan's widowed sister, Nivriti, who decides to adopt the foundling, telling everyone that the child is her son. He is named Veer, and grows up alongside the king's heir, Dharam. However, Jaivardhan aspires to make his son, Agni, the next king, and enlists a female dacoit (bandit) named Shera to kill Dharam. Shera follows the two rajkumars (non-ruling princes) to a mela (a gathering or fair) but miserably fails to kill Dharam. Dharam meets and falls in love with a princess named Sia, while Veer meets Shera who is pretending to be a princess named Ananya. When they return from the mela, Aryavardhan sends Dharam, Veer and Agni to Gurukula (residential school) to train themselves to become rajkumar.
At the gurukula, Dharam and Veer become competitors and a sense of rivalry turns their relationship bitter. Later, they reconcile and become inseparable. Toward the end of the training, Veer again meets Shera and this time they fall in love. Although Shera changes due to Veer's love, Veer condemns Shera when he learns her true identity and mission to kill Dharam. The cousins return to Aryanagar where Dharam announces that Veer deserves to be king, and Aryavardhan announces Veer's coronation ceremony. This angers the head of the Shramiks, Bhimsen, and Veer's birth mother and sister, Pari and Sakshi – who were all waiting for their messiah.
Due to chance,[further explanation needed] Veer comes to know that he is not an Aryavrath. On the day of his coronation, he enters the palace as the messiah of the Shramiks, shocking everyone. The Rajya Sabha (parliament) jails Veer. Dharam is crowned instead, and asks Veer to return to the palace, but Veer asks for the Shramik's freedom and leaves to stay with his birth mother and sister.
Dharam and Veer become enemies and start hating each other. Dharam meets Sia again, and Veer meets and forgives Shera. Dharam and Veer are tricked by Jaivardhan and Agni, and decide to kill each other, but at the end of the drama the treachery is revealed and they reunite to kill the would-be usurpers. Veer returns to the palace to stay with Dharam and they are both crowned kings of Aryanagar, and Dharam announces the emancipation of the Shramiks.
Main characters[edit]
Dharam (played by Vikrant Massey) was brought up to believe in righteousness, follow his dharma as a prince and fulfill his responsibilities and duties towards the kingdom and its people. He is a year older than Veer, who is his best friend and (secretly adopted) cousin. Dharam loves and has complete faith in Veer and he is the one who usually uses his mind and his knowledge of the Aryanagar parampara[further explanation needed] over his feelings when faced with a situation. He has also developed some feelings for the princess of Awadhi, Rajkumari Sia.
Veer (played by Rajat Tokas) is Dharam's (secretly adopted) cousin and best friend, and he loves Dharam and believes it is his duty to protect him no matter what. He is instinctive and spontaneous, blessed with a natural wit and intelligence which he uses to help Dharam fulfill his princely duties and responsibilities.
Shera (played by Mugdha Chaphekar) is a thug, a strong lady who does whatever her father tells her to do, robbing people and accumulating treasure. She had been paid a ransom to kill Dharam, and represents herself as a princess named Ananya. Shera changes herself for her love of Veer, but her identity is revealed which leads to their breakup. She helps Veer in all possible ways, and finally reunites with Veer and helps Veer and Dharam succeed their throne.
Sia (played by Geetu Bawa & Priyanka Mishra) is the princess of Avadhi. She has a sharp tongue and throws frequent tantrums, wanting everything to go her way. Her few encounters with Dharam leave her angry but she later falls for him, encouraged by a fortune-teller (who was actually Veer in disguise). When she speaks low of Shramiks in Aryanagar, Dharam indignantly tells her to step out of his kingdom. Later she realizes her mistake and loves Dharam but she does not get a response from him.
Episodes[edit]
The first episode of Dharam Veer was 'Kingdom of Aryanagar' which aired on 21 January 2008. The series continued until 4 December 2008.
Themes[edit]
The story of Dharam Veer is of close resemblance to the story of Moses from the Bible where Moses was abandoned by his poor parents in basket into the river Nile and how the royal family found him and was raised as a royal himself.[citation needed]
External links[edit]
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharam_Veer_(TV_series)&oldid=919517744'
Dharamveer Bhadoria vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 20 July, 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate Mr. Kumar Sourav Chatterjee, AdvocateFor the Directorate Enforcement : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.04/ Dated: 20/07/2018
1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint CaseECIR/06/PAT/2012/PMLA in which cognizance of offence has been taken undersection 3 and under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by theCourt of Sri A.K. Mishra No. 1, Spl. Judge, P.M.L.Act, Ranchi.
2. The case of prospection, in short, is that the complainant-Sri Subodh Kumar,Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, lodged thecomplaint against the M/s Nav Nirman Builders represent through its partners andDharamveer Bhadoria, Managing partner and Power of Attorney, holder of M/s NavNirman Builders as well as Director of the M/s Nav Nirman Builders and DevelopersPvt. Ltd (petitioner) under section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 forcommission of offence under section 3, Punishable under section 4 of the Prevention ofMoney Laundering Act, 2002 alleging therein that an FIR NO. RC-20A was registeredby the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi on 22.10.2009 for violation of section120B read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P>C and under section 13(2) readwith Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri Basudeo Tiwary, thethen Executive Engineer, R.C.D, Chaibasa, M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Adityapur,Jamshedpur for criminal conspiracy, cheating forgery of valuable security, forgery forthe purpose of cheating, using as genuine, a forged document and criminal misconduct.
Consequent to the result of investigation conducted by the Central Bureau ofInvestigation , Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in FIR No. RC-20(A)2009, a Final 2Report/Charge-sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C has since been filed by C.B.I, ACBRanchi on 03.12.2010 in the Court of learned Special Judge, (CBI), Ranchi against M/sNav Nirman Builders, Shri Dharamveer Bhadoria ,partner in M/s Nav Nirman Builders,Shri Basudeo Tiwary the then Executive Engineer, RCD, Shri Ram Bilash Sahu the thenAssistant Engineer RCD, Shri Arun Kumar Singh the then Junior Engineer, RCD, ShriRam Bilash SAhu the then Assistant RCD, Shri Arun Kumar Singh the then JuniorEngineer, RCD, Chaibasa under section 120B of IPC r erad with sections 13(2), r/wSection 13(1(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then ExecutiveEngineer, Road Construction Department (RCD), Chaibasa, during the period 2006-07,entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, the contracting firmM/s Nav NIrman Builders submitted false/bogus invices showing procurement ofpacked bitumen for the execution of the contractual works a warded in its f avour,which caused wrongful gain to the contracting firm and corresponding wrongful loss tothe Government of Jharkhand. It is further alleged that the accused Shri BasudeoTiwary, the then Executive Engineer, in strict abuse of his official position, dishonestlyand fraudulently certified the bills of the contracting firm for payment of Rs.89,68,966/- was released to the contractor. Dharamvier Bhadoria (petitioner) during therelevant period, was the Managing Partner and holder of Power of Attorney of firm M/sNav Nirman Builders,
4. Investigation reveals that contractor firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders, had beenissued one work order no. 150 (Anu) dated 2w3.02.2007 by aforesaid Basudeo Tiwary,the then Executive Engineer for Special repair work in Km 61,62, 63 & 64 (763 m) ofSerakella-Chaibasa Road in Km 1 (150 m) 2(800m), 4(800m) & 5(150 m) of Chaibasa-Bypass Road. As per agreement , total 186.564 Mt of packed bitumen of Grade-60/70was required to issue the authority letters in favour fo Government Oil Companies forallowing lifting of bitumen by the contractor, mentioning therein the quantity and gradeof bitumen required for particular work. But accused Basru Tiwary, the then ExecutiveEngineer conspired with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, and dishonestly did not issue any 3authority letter, addressed to the Oil Companies for the sale of said quantity and gradeof packed bitumen to accused contractor firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders.
5. Investigation further reveals that as per the date of work-order and entries madein the Measurement Book by the accused public servants as aforesaid M/s Nav NirmanBuilders, commenced the work on 23.02.2007 and completed it by 29.04.2007. Themeasurement of the work done by the contractor firm was recorded in the MeasurementBooks by accused Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the then Junior Engineer and was alsocountersigned by accused Sri Ram Bilas Sahu, the then Assistant Engineer and finally,the accused Sri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer had certified theexecution of said work. Total 186.564 Mt of bitumen was shown to be used in themeasurement books as against the estimated quantity of 186.564 Mt of bitumen as perthe agreement. These public servants as mentioned above, showed criminalmisconduct, by conspiring with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur and by abusingtheir official positions passed the bills of contractor firm without any correspondingdocument proof, ie. Gate pass and invoices for brining the bitumen to the work site.
6. The investigation further disclosed that accused firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders,Jamshepur had not procured any quantity of packed bitumen of g rade 60/70 for theaforesaid road-work of RCD, Road Division, Chaibasa from any Govt. Oil Companiesduring the period of execution of work ie. From 23.02.2007 to 29.04.2007 M/s NavNirman Builders, Jamshedpur had purchased only about 68.016 Mt of bitumen duringthe relevant period and that too for another work being executed under NationalHighway Division, Jamshedpur.
7. The investigation further disclosed that accused firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders,Jamshedpur, did not submit any bitumen invoices as a proof of procurement of packedbitumen of grad 60/70 to the O/0 the Executive Engineer, RCD, Road Division,Chaibasa without producing any invoices of bitumen, which were required as a prooffor procurement of bitumen.
8. Investigation further reveals that during course of statement of the petitionerrecorded under section 50 of PMLA on 26.05.2015, petitioner has stated that during the 4work period 03 road works were going simultaneously namely (i) Seraikella-ChaibasaRoad Kms 61, 62, 63, 64 part and Chaibassa Bypass K.M 1 (150m), 2, (800m)_, 3(200m) and 5 (150m). (ii) Widening and strengthen of Seraikella-Chaibasa Road and
(iii) Special repair of Seraikella-Koilabira Road. He also stated that total 56 invoices(48+8), covering 8222.870 Mt of bitumen (694.7252 Mt + 128.145 Mt) were submittedfor the aforesaid work, only on the demand of the then Executive Engineer in 2008 andnot at the time of submitting bills at the time of claiming payment thereof. He furtherstated that at that time i.e 2008 he being out of station, his staff mistakenly submittedphoto copies of 37 invoices pertained to N.H. Division. Thereafter they submittedfurther 56 invoices.
9. Investigation further reveals that Shri Dhyarmveer Bhadoria partner of M/s NavNirman Builders vide his letter dated 22.03.2007 further submitted the particulars ofutilization of money receive from RCD, Chaibasa, without any documents, as under:
Total work done value-Rs.89,68,966/-
Expenditure:
water tanker, hot mix plant, paver finisher, including cost of transporting of mix, fuel etc Rs. 5,46,000/-.
Contractors profit & overhead charges= Rs. 6,29,270/-Total= Rs, 89,68,966/-.
5
10. Investigation further reveals that Shri Dharamver Bhadoria, (petitioner) strainedevery nerve to mislead the investigation by hiding and suppressing the facts in respectof the M/s Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd in which he was one of theDirector of the Company. In his statement he had submitted he was carrying on businessonly as a partner of the accused Firm. It is also revealed that the control of the companynamely M/s Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd is in the hands of partners ofthe accused company. The entire share capital as disclosed is owned by the partners ofthe accused firm and the interest of the partners of accused firm was liable forattachment in the absence of any property available in the name of accused firm. ThusM/s Nav Nirman Buildes, through criminal conspiracy and the public servants throughcriminal misconduct and hence such ill gotten money which became proceeds of crimesas aforesaid were liable for attachment and therefore, it was essential to invoke theprovision of section 5(1) read with 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002 against the followingproperties in lieu of proceeds of crime because if these properties w ere left unattachedthey were likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with by the accused persons insuch a manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscationthereof;
11. As stipulated under Section 5(5) of the PMLA, the Complaint No. 760/2017dated 28.04.2017 was filed by the complainant before the learned AdjudicatingAuthority, New Delhi under PMLA in resepct of the Provisional Attachment Order(AO) NO. 01/2017.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail application hassubmitted that the sum and substances of the allegation made in the charge sheet againstthe petitioner is that as per the agreement executed with respect to the works theExecutive Engineer was supposed to issue authority letters on the basis of whichbitumen was to be procured only from the oil companies of the Government of Indianamely Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd andthe Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and the invoices raised by the said companies against theBitumen supplied by them was to be submitted with the offence of the ExecutiveEngineer who was required to verify the same and it was only upon verification of theinvoices, receipts, gate passes and quality checks etc that the payment was to bereleased to the contractor. However, a careful perusal of the statement of theprosecution witnesses itself shows that there are no grounds for sustaining theallegations made by the C.B.I in the charge-sheet and not even a prima facie case ofsuspicion is made out against the petitioner of having entered into a conspiracy with theaccused public servants.
So far as the specific allegation in the F.I.R (RC-20(A)/2000/2009(R) isconcerned that out of the 37 invoices purportedly submitted by the petitioner sixinvoices were false, the same is compeltely belied and proved to be false by thestatement of Sri Brundaban Soren who was working as the Senior Plant Manager,IOCL, Jamshedpur bottling plant who has clearly stated that all the 37 invoices were 8issued from the Jamshedpur Bottling Plant and were genuine. However, the C.B.Idespite being aware of the said fact has suppressed the same and has submitted thecharge-sheet.
13. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that during course ofinvestigation the C.B.I had also made inquiries from the petitioner firm under section91 of the Cr.P.C and had made specific queries vide letter dated 15.03.2010 the C.BImade altogether 10 queries inter alia as to whether the petitioner had submitted invoiceswith the department, whether authority letter had been issued by the office of theExecutive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa for purchase of the bitumen was procured. Thecopies of the invoices were also demanded from the petitioner. The queries made by theC.B.I were duly replied ton on behalf of the petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2010wherein it was clarified that so far as the work in question was concerned the originalinvoices were not submitted since they were never demanded by the division during thepassing of the bills. However, on receipt of letter no. 1151 dated 19.11.2008, Letter No.1153 and 1156 dated 01.12.2008 from the Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa for allthe three works executed by the petitioner firm near about the same time as the SpecialRepair Works which are the subject matter of the instant case, original invoices relatingto 694.7252 Mt. Of bitumen were handed over to Mr. Shankhu Hembram, the accountsclerk of the RCD, Even subsequently, in March, 2009, additional 8 invoices pertainingto 128.1456 M.T was handed over to Shri Muni Lal Choudhary, corresponding clerk ofthe R.C.D on 26.03.2009. The said Mr. Shankhu Hembram was duly examined by theC.B.I in the course of investigation and in his statement he has confirmed that he hadvisited the office of the petitioner firm in Jamshedpur and had received 48 number ofinvoices of packed bitumen for the road works of (1) Seraikella Chaibasa Road (k.M,48 to K.M. 58 Part II (2) Special Repair work of part K.M>S of Seraikella-ChaibasaRoad and Chaibasa Bypass Road and (3) Sijulatakolebera Road (M.M 8 to 12). He hasfurther confirmed that the correspondence clerk of the RC.D had thereafter received 8invoices of packed bitumen issued by HPCL on 26.12.2009 in the office of thepetitioner pertaining to 128.1456 M.T and that the petitioner had submitted invoices for 9a total quantity of 822.8708 M.T of packed bitumen for the above mentioned threeworks. Even the correspondence clerk has accepted in his statement recorded by theC.B.I that he had received the 8 invoices. It is pertinent to mentioned that that SriChandra Bhanu Singh, the then Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa has also acceptedin his statement given to the C.B.I that he had forwarded the invoices received from thepetitioner in December, 2008 and March, 2009 to the C.B.I vide his letter dated18.12.2010.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as such the the caseof prosecution that no invoice at all was submitted by the petitioner firm with respect tothe special repair work in question, is completely demolished by the statements of itsown witnesses.
![Dharam veer film Dharam veer film](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XQB-MMVJsNk/hqdefault.jpg)
15. It is further submitted that the entire issue with regard to the non-submission ofthe invoices has to be considered in view of the clarification given by the petitioner tothe C.B.I with regard to the process by which the bitumen was procured by thepetitioner firm and the circumstances that the petitioner firm was asked to complete theworks in question in a very short time.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that section 13 of the P.C. Actdeals with criminal misconduct by a public servant and section 13(1)(d) deals with theclassified misdemeanor of the pubic servant in question and admittedly petitioner hasreceived the sum of Rs. 79,11,599.00 from the Govt of Jharkhand for the execution ofthe contract in question and no forgery or fabrication or cheating was indulged in by thepetitioner in receiving the said sum of money from the Government for the contractualwork executed by it. The ED out of its own wild imagination has taken this figure ofRs. 79,11,599.00 being the amount received as proceeds of crime.
17. Further, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since thecharge-sheet was submitted by the C.B.I in R.C. 20(A)/2009 (R)the Hon'ble SupremeCourt vide order dated 21.08.2012 passed in S.L.A. (Crl) No. 5737/2012 directed that 'in the event the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, he shall be released onbail to the satisfaction of the surrendering court, Spl. Judge, C.B.I, A.C.B, Ranchi in 10R.C. No. 20(A)/2009 速 on such conditions as may be considered necessary by the trialcourt. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted on bail and has never misused theprivilege of bail in aforesaid case.
18. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final formhas been submitted accordingly, cognizance has been taken, the petitioner hascooperated with the investigation and he has appeared before the Investigating Officeras and when required and he has never been arrested during investigation and Trial willtake some time. Considering all these facts, the petitioners deserve privilege ofanticipatory bail.
19. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P for the Enforcement Directorate opposes theprayer for anticipatory bail and counter-affidavit has been filed by Assistant Director ofthe Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi stating therein that contracting firm M/s NavNirman Builders, petitioner Dharamveer Bhadoria, Managing Partner and AttorneyHolder of M/s Nav Nirman Builders during the period 2006-7 entered into criminalconspiracy with the Executive Engineer, Shri Basudeo Tiwary, abusing his officialposition dishonestly and fraudulently, certified the bills of the firm of this petitioner forprocurement of packed bitumen for payment of Rs. 89,68,966/- and accordingly thesame was released in the bank account of the petitioner. Further, it was found, as perthe work contract the procurement of bitumen was mandatory from the establishmentof Indian Government and it was mandatory for the contractor to submit the gate passand evidence of bitumen carried from Oil companies to work site and the same wasmandatory to be verified physically by the Executive Engineer but it was found withoutany papers submitted by the contracting firm, the Executive Engineer Basudeo Tiwaryin connivance with other officials have wrongfully certified the bills of this firm anddue to that the petitioner succeeded in withdrawing the payment of Rs. 89,68,966/ in hisfavour out of which after mandatory deduction Rs. 79,11,559/- were credited into thebank account through 03 nos of cheques. On scrutiny it was found that the aforesaidamount were exhausted by way of number of payments made to the various partiesprojecting untainted money and caused wrongful loss to the government and wrongful 11gain to the petitioner and the aforesaid money was projected untained by disbursing thesame to others.
20. Further, it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P appearing for EnforcementDirectorate that investigation under PMLA is concerned, the proceedings under PMLA,which is s self contained act in itself and has overriding effect over any other law for thetime being in force. It is further submitted that from the investigation conducted underPMLA, it is stated that statement of petitioner Dharamveer Bhadoria being theManaging Partner of M/s Nav Nirman Builders was recorded under section 50 ofPMLA , 2002. During his statement, he stated that the work orer in question wasexecuted between Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, R.C.D RoadDivision, Chaibasa and the petitioner in the capacity of Partner of M/s Nav NirmanBuilders, that work was started on 23.02.2007 and completed by 29.04.2007. Thecontractual value of the said work order was 90,26,174/- but his firm had receivedpayment of Rs. 79,11,599.00 in three installments. He further revealed that the did notremember the use of packed bitumen. He also accepted that the then ExecutiveEngineer did not issue any authority letter favuring M/s Nav Nirman BuildersConstruction for procurement of Bitumen from Govt. OIL Company, that at that timebitumen was not available at Govt. Oil Company, so after physical verification ofbitumen stock kept at Hot mix plant of contractor in Sini by Shri Basudeo Tiwary, thethen Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa and quality examined by A.P, Quality Control,R.C.D, Chaibiasa.
21. Further, it has been by the learned Spl. P.P that as per agreement the bitumenwas to be procured by the contractor from the oil companies of the Government and hehad to submit the proof of brining the bitumen to worksite and to submit the gate passalso. However, the authorisation letter in favour of the oil companies were never issuedby the Executive Engineer, who in connivance with the petitioner, passed the bills andreleased cheques. Thus, the petitioner committed offences under sections 120B of I.P.Cread with section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whichare scheduled offences under the PMLA and were involved in criminal conspiracy and 12criminal misconduct and thereby, M/s Nav Nirman Builders became beneficiary ofProceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 79,11,559/-.
22. Further, it has been submitted by the learnd Spl. P.P for the EnforcementDirectorate that as per section 2(1) (u) of the PMLA, Proceeds of Crime, means anyproperty derived or obtained, directely or indirectely, by any persons as a result ofcriminal actitivity relating t a scheduled offences or the value of any such property orwhere such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalentin value held within the country. From the above definition it is amply clear that eventhrough any property derived or obtained offence or the value of any such property, thatshall be the Proceeds of Crime,. It is further stated that the petitioner has not gonethrough the Provisional Attachment Order as well as the original complaint filed beforrethe Adjudicating Authority which are self-explanatory. On the basis of the aforesaidfacts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder dated18.07.2018 to the counter-affidavit stating therein as under:
'7. That it has been contended by the O.P in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner in his letter dated 22.03.2017 claimed that he spent Rs. 49,21,738/- towards carriage of bitumen from HPCl godown to the site of work, whereas the petitioner in his statement recorded before the Department on 17.04.2015 has stated that Bitumen stock Kept at hot mix plant of the petitioner was used in the said work which falsified the contention of the petitioner.
In this regard it is stated that the O.P has disrobed the aforesaid facts and the same is contrary to the record of the case. Para 2.2.(7) of the application at page 54 evidently shows that the O.P asked the petitioner about the utilization of money received from R.C.D, Chaibasa and the petitioner vide his letter dated 22.03.2017, interalia submitted the statement of utilization of the said money. It is humbly stated that the petitioner oat serial no. 5 has specifically mentioned 'Cost of Bitumen with carriage from HPCL godown to Hot Mix Plant Rs. 49,21,738/- where as the O.P in its counter-affidavit has deliberately changed the 13 word 'Cost of bitumen with carriage'. It is humbly stated that the O.P being the agency of the Central Government is not expected to mislead the Hon'ble Court on facts of the case.
8. That it has been contended by the O.P in the counter-affidavit that the defene taken by the petitioner that he already got bitumen in his stock which he used for execution of the work stands falsified from the fact that the petitioner had claimed and realized Rs. 49,21,788/- as reiumbursement of cost of transportation of bitumen from HPCL godown to Hot mix Plant.
In this regard it is stated that the aforesaid statement of O.P in its counter- affidavit is factually worng, denied and contrary to the record of the case. It is humbly stated that Rs. 49,21,788/- is not the cost of transportation/carriage rather it is the cost of bitument including carriage charge.
It is stated that when the petitioner had purchased the bitumen from HPCL godown and carried it to his hot-mix plant, besides cost of bitumen it must had incurred carriage cost as well. The petitioner vide its letter dated 22.03.2017 has simply given the break up of the amount received from R.C.D., Chaibassa for the said work to the Opposite Party.'
24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through therecords and considering the fact that in main case of C.B.I i.e. RC-20(A)2009, thepetitioner has been admitted on bail, final form has been submitted in this case,cognizance has been taken, trial will take some time, during investigation the petitionerco-operated in the investigation and he has never been arrested by the E.D, I aminclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail with cost on the following grounds:
(i) The petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- before theSecretary/ President, JHarkahnd High Court Advocates Association, Ranchi latest by13.08.2018. The aforesaid amount would be used for the welfare of the learnedMembers of the concerned Association.
(ii) The Secretary/ President, Jharkahnd High Court Advocates Association,Ranchi is directed to issue receipt with regard to deposition of aforesaid amount, 14thereafter the petitioner is directed to produce the aforesaid receipt before the trial courton the date of his surrender.
(iii) Petitioner will fully cooperate with the trial and also appear physically oneach and every date of trial before the trial court.
(iv) If the petitioner wants exemption from appearance, he will inform thelearned counsel for the E.D in advance and after taking necessary permission from TrialCourt, he may be exempted from personal appearance.
(v) The petitioner will not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial.
(vi) The petitioner will deposit his pass port (if any) before the Trial court-Special court.
25. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Courtbelow latest by 20.08.2018 and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court belowshall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfactionof Sri A.K. Mishra No. 1, learned Spl. Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi in connection withComplaint Case ECIR/06/PAT/2012/PMLA, subject to conditions as laid down underSection 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to further condition that one of the bailorsmust be local resident of Ranchi district.
26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court as well as to theSecretary/ President, Jharkahnd High Court Advocates Association, Ranchi and copy ofthis order be handed over to the learned Spl. P.P for the Enforcement Directorate.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)Satyarthi/-