STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh rejected bail application of a Junior Engineer namely Tarun Gupta along with Khalid Najeeb, Shafqat Hussain, Naseer Rashid, Amit Kumar, Akhter Hussain, Tanveer Ahmad Shah, Nelofar Akhter, Mansoor Hussain, Abdul Rehman, Sajad Ahmad, Abdul Majid, Rahila Parveen and Fareed Ahmad Natoo, who were booked by ACB for drawl of payments against fictitious bills, inflated billing for material and non-existent works in Block Dali, Udhyanpur, District Doda.
According to ACB, case was registered with Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Doda J&K after conducting preliminary inquiry into allegations of drawl of payments by ACDs, BDOs & REWs Doda against fictitious bills, inflated billing for material and drawl of payments against non-existent works in Block Belli of district Doda w.e.f., 2014-2018. As per status report filed by respondent, 1,386 works under different heads were executed in aforesaid block for aforementioned period, out of which 118 works were inspected randomly during probe and loss was detected in 29 works on account of less execution on ground, escalated entries in M-Book etc. Moreover, a work namely construction of path at Gowari to Road Panchayat Seel, Udhyanur was found non-existent. During investigation, a loss of Rs 18,75,307 (rupees Eighteen Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred and Seven only) was found inflicted on the exchequer. Further, excess payment was allegedly drawn in connection with these 30 works by the then BDO of Block Dali, Udhyanur on the basis of measurement taken and bills prepared by respective JEs/VLWs/GRSs who are allegedly the petitioners.
Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh while rejecting the pre-arrest bail application, observed that even the cursory look upon the investigation carried out thus far would throw up a disturbing pattern as to how payments were drawn in the case in question against fictitious and inflated bills. “There are grave and profoundly serious allegations of corruption, forgery of valuable security, forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document knowingly-against petitioners in addition to the charge of conspiracy. It needs to be noted that offences alleged in case in hand against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act are non bailable in nature. Similarly, offences under sections 467 & 468 of RPC are also non-bailable. Serious allegations of corruption have to be treated with greater seriousness. It is trite that corruption not only leads to systematic economic crimes but is also a violation of human rights. In the wake of allegations against petitioners, anticipatory bail if granted to them, would not only adversely affect ongoing investigation but shall also deprive investigating agency from further unearthing the scam in question,” the Court observed.